Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mattghg]

Better a no comment than a stupid assed one.

Yes indeed.

 

[thehog]

Clearly you are the one with no idea. Yes, he got sent of in 1998 and for the next few years he was castigated by the press (so including 1998)

Before that he was one of Englands 'golden boys'. In fact that is why there was such a backlash after 98.

Fox Sports.

But he wasn't dominating. He was being sent off. You failed on the original question and clearly don't read.

Thanks Fox Sports.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Fox Sports.

But he wasn't dominating. He was being sent off. You failed on the original question and clearly don't read.

Thanks Fox Sports.

In the UK its Sky sports. You have no idea do you?

Oh and in 99 Beckham was still being scrutinised for any little thing.

Come on Hoggy if you are going to make stuff up make it like the old days where you tell really big whoppers.

 

[Ferminal]

Another thing.

If the media were so on top of things, why hasn't the departure of Rogers raised any questions?

Why hasn't the departure of anyone raised questions?

 

[thehog]

In the UK its Sky sports. You have no idea do you?

Oh and in 99 Beckham was still being scrutinised for any little thing.

Come on Hoggy if you are going to make stuff up make it like the old days where you tell really big whoppers.

I have lots of idea. In fact I have all the ideas!

In your world Sky are clean and Beckham was dominating the 1998 World Cup! Ha!

You love FoxSports. Sky is too highbrow for you.

I suppose Gazza is still dominating now?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Why hasn't the departure of anyone raised questions?

Surely it depends on how integral to the team they are/were? But even so you would have to tread very carefully. Even though Armstrong lost in the end few media outlets want to get entangled in a legal case.

Not only that but cycling is still not that big in the UK much as some people seem to think otherwise. From that point of view it is a non-story.

 

[ebandit]

sky

I have lots of idea. In fact I have all the ideas!

but little to say here about team sky?

while you are keen to mock another member

Mark L

 

[del1962]

Why hasn't the departure of anyone raised questions?

What sort of questions?

A number of staff and one rider left some of whom admitted to doping in the past, all reported.

Leinders depature was mentioned and questions have been asked.

These things are not going to be back page headlines though, because some footballer has pulled his hamstring

 

[ebandit]

ztp

Why hasn't the departure of anyone raised questions?

because it fits in with ztp...............those who had claimed / were thought

to be clean have moved on

Mark L

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I have lots of idea. In fact I have all the ideas!

In your world Sky are clean and Beckham was dominating the 1998 World Cup! Ha!

You love FoxSports. Sky is too highbrow for you.

I suppose Gazza is still dominating now?

You did not even know Sky Sports was the sports channel in the UK..? And you claim to have lived there (town and gown in Cambridge).

Who said Beckham was dominating 98 world cup. In 99 he won the triple and
was runner up in the World Footballer of the year. He was still under huge media scrutiny and many papers had it in for him.

Perhaps you were working at the AIS then, eh?

As soon as you are pushed you seem to get very upset.

What does it matter what Gazza is doing now? Find mental illness funny? Nice.

 

[RownhamHill]

Why hasn't the departure of anyone raised questions?

It's an interesting question that - I remember before Christmas when Sky announced their ZTP that a lot of people on these boards thought it was a massive PR fail. And yet, in many ways, they got on the front foot and flushed out a lot of the irritating back questions that were floating around - so for example I notice Flecha has recently been linked to Puerto (indeed may have been in the past but I wasn't aware of it?). Now if Flecha was still at Sky this year, who's to say what the reaction would have been, but I think there may have been a lot more traffic in this thread about how his back story is another 'dot to be joined' in the Sky is doping narrative. Yet because he's now on a different team Sky seem to have dodged that particular 'dot'.

And really what do you expect the press to say about the departure of Rogers or Flecha? On the face of the explanation given by Sky: 'we don't want people on our team who might have a past involvement in doping' seems to fit the facts in both these cases - ie two riders with circumstantial* evidence linking them to past doping have left the team the previous year. So exactly what questions does that raise? That cycling has a massive history of doping, and that some current riders have unsavoury pasts? That Sky has implemented a policy successfully having publicly announced they were going to? They're not particularly interesting questions to be honest.

So in those terms it seems rather than a PR fail, flushing out those people with a past does seem to have allowed Sky to avoid the kind of awkward questions it was facing last year with regards to Leinders, for example.

*I'm really not familiar with Flecha's history (other than a nickname classiconmano, which always makes me smile as it reminds me of a Nintendo character) so apologies if the evidence is more than circumstantial.

 

[thehog]

You did not even know Sky Sports was the sports channel in the UK..? And you claim to have lived there (town and gown in Cambridge).

Who said Beckham was dominating 98 world cup. In 99 he won the triple and
was runner up in the World Footballer of the year. He was still under huge media scrutiny and many papers had it in for him.

Perhaps you were working at the AIS then, eh?

As soon as you are pushed you seem to get very upset.

What does it matter what Gazza is doing now? Find mental illness funny? Nice.

You're right. I know nothing.

Cycling has turned a corner. Sky is clean. The UCI's bio passport has seen an end to doping and everything well in cycling.

Froome's metorical rise is down to hard work and the clearing of his debilitating blood illness.

Porte's sudden boost in power is also down to the same hardwork.

Rogers decline is down to illness and not leaving Sky. It's mearly coincidence that he can no longer keep up.

The UK press loved David Beckham but took him down in his prime. They would do the same to any UK cyclist if something untoward was found. Which I doubt because they're clean.

SkySports is UK's favourite sports channel. It's the only one in some people's mind. For those who can afford the package.

Those in Australa end up watching FoxSports for a watered down view.

All is ok in the world of cycling. It's clean.

The performance improvements from Sky is down to hard work and finally excuted tactics.

It has nothing to do with doping.

Period.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You're right. I know nothing.

Cycling has turned a corner. Sky is clean. The UCI's bio passport has seen an end to doping and everything well in cycling.

Froome's metorical rise is down to hard work and the clearing of his debilitating blood illness.

Porte's sudden boost in power is also down to the same hardwork.

Rogers decline is down to illness and not leaving Sky. It's mearly coincidence that he can no longer keep up.

The UK press loved David Beckham but took him down in his prime. They would do the same to any UK cyclist if something untoward was found. Which I doubt because they're clean.

SkySports is UK's favourite sports channel. It's the only one in some people's mind. For those who can afford the package.

Those in Australa end up watching FoxSports for a watered down view.

All is ok in the world of cycling. It's clean.

The performance improvements from Sky is down to hard work and finally excuted tactics.

It has nothing to do with doping.

Period.

Hoggy, a bit touchy? But glad we agree that I was right about Beckham

 

[Benotti69]

It's an interesting question that - I remember before Christmas when Sky announced their ZTP that a lot of people on these boards thought it was a massive PR fail. And yet, in many ways, they got on the front foot and flushed out a lot of the irritating back questions that were floating around - so for example I notice Flecha has recently been linked to Puerto (indeed may have been in the past but I wasn't aware of it?). Now if Flecha was still at Sky this year, who's to say what the reaction would have been, but I think there may have been a lot more traffic in this thread about how his back story is another 'dot to be joined' in the Sky is doping narrative. Yet because he's now on a different team Sky seem to have dodged that particular 'dot'.

And really what do you expect the press to say about the departure of Rogers or Flecha? On the face of the explanation given by Sky: 'we don't want people on our team who might have a past involvement in doping' seems to fit the facts in both these cases - ie two riders with circumstantial* evidence linking them to past doping have left the team the previous year. So exactly what questions does that raise? That cycling has a massive history of doping, and that some current riders have unsavoury pasts? That Sky has implemented a policy successfully having publicly announced they were going to? They're not particularly interesting questions to be honest.

So in those terms it seems rather than a PR fail, flushing out those people with a past does seem to have allowed Sky to avoid the kind of awkward questions it was facing last year with regards to Leinders, for example.

*I'm really not familiar with Flecha's history (other than a nickname classiconmano, which always makes me smile as it reminds me of a Nintendo character) so apologies if the evidence is more than circumstantial.

They did get not get on the front foot. They jettisoned anyone and everyone who had a doping past to avoid what looked like a snowball* turning into an avalanche and therefore limiting any possible damage.

*Armstrong was a big snowball but it looked like that the whole sport was about to come clean and that would have damaged sky who stated they had a ZTP, which they ignored.

Sky still have not answered any questions to any real satisfaction as to how Mick Barry, Yates, all the others and especially Leinders were hired by a team that said it would have nothing whatsoever to do with doping.

 

[andy1234]

Hoggy, a bit touchy? But glad we agree that I was right about Beckham
Btw what was you degree in?

He majored in Tauras Cacas.

 

[Ferminal]

Surely it depends on how integral to the team they are/were? But even so you would have to tread very carefully. Even though Armstrong lost in the end few media outlets want to get entangled in a legal case.

Not only that but cycling is still not that big in the UK much as some people seem to think otherwise. From that point of view it is a non-story.

What sort of questions?

A number of staff and one rider left some of whom admitted to doping in the past, all reported.

Leinders depature was mentioned and questions have been asked.

These things are not going to be back page headlines though, because some footballer has pulled his hamstring

That's exactly the point. The claim that Sky wouldn't do anything because the press would be on them like a hawk doesn't hold when the only doping stories of any significance are someone testing positive.

There is plenty of stuff which you can ask/write about re: the depatures and the history of those involved. It's something I'd find interesting and relevant to the question of Sky doping, but agreed not mainstream news material.

 

[thehog]

Hoggy, a bit touchy? But glad we agree that I was right about Beckham

I'm very touchy.

Alas, you are right. I agree. You know a lot about David Beckham. He is a very attractive man. Blonde hair. Good body. I can see why you know a lot about his him and his career. I'm sorry that I haven't studied him as close as you.

Anyway. Back to cycling.

Having 5 guys from one team finish a mountain stage togethe is nomral.

To transform mid pack fodder into powerhouse doms is normal.

It comes down to money and hardwork.

Other cycling teams don't have enough money and don't train as hard.

I look forward to both the Giro and Tour where Sky can dominate. Clean cycling will prevail.

I'm not looking forward to this forum though. Many might think its doping. But hardwork pays.

 

[mikehammer67]

'flushing out those people with a past'

lolz

 

[armchairclimber]

If you lot would stop being so funny, I might have half a chance of getting some work done.

 

[The Hitch]

The British Media is quite happy to go after a top sports star, just look at Ryan Giggs's problems recently, we do however have libel laws, so to break a drugs story their has to be a thing we call evidence, or you may get sued, in Britain we do kind of need evidence to convict people, it must be one of our faults

yes. If Wiggins slept with Michelle Cound the press would have a field day. That's not the same as trying to expose the great British acheivments of Mr great Britain who beat those frogs in the name of great Britain.

No more than the Spanish press give any thought to the allegations against their football team.

 

[RownhamHill]

They did get not get on the front foot. They jettisoned anyone and everyone who had a doping past to avoid what looked like a snowball* turning into an avalanche and therefore limiting any possible damage.

*Armstrong was a big snowball but it looked like that the whole sport was about to come clean and that would have damaged sky who stated they had a ZTP, which they ignored.

Sky still have not answered any questions to any real satisfaction as to how Mick Barry, Yates, all the others and especially Leinders were hired by a team that said it would have nothing whatsoever to do with doping.

Yeah, you see in my opinion, in PR terms, what you've described is the classic definition of getting on the front foot. You act first to jettison the liability and therefore limit any possible future damage (such as, in the example I gave, Flecha's links with Puerto). As opposed to being on the back foot when you do nothing and pursue a reactive PR strategy (ie if Flecha was still on the team you'd expect: Puerto was in '06, we can't comment on our rider's past, but we know in his time on Sky he's been first class, nothing to see here, move along).

Such that your last point doesn't matter in PR terms. They've not had to answer those questions as these are now all in the past - they can claim to have taken decisive action and owned any mistakes they'd made. ie Why did you hire Leinders? Because he's a doctor, and we didn't know his past. But we made a mistake, we didn't check thoroughly enough, so we've now ended our relationship with him. There's no real follow up question to that really - other than basically accusing them of lying.

And don't get me wrong. They may well be lying. Equally they may well be telling the truth (human being in 'not having 360 degree information and foresight' shocker). It really doesn't matter in an analysis of their PR strategy/tactics. These evidently haven't in the past always been first class. But in this particular case, in PR terms, it's kind of hard to see what the questions are you'd be pursuing at the moment which didn't make you look like you were pursuing a vendetta. (Why did you do exactly what you said you were going to do, in line with a policy that you told everyone you were pursuing?)

 

[The Hitch]

Fox Sports.

But he wasn't dominating. He was being sent off. You failed on the original question and clearly don't read.

Thanks Fox Sports.

hog. As I recall, and I don't care for football much, but as I recall Beckham got wacked in the press in 2000 after euro 2000. Think he swore at the fans or something.

 

[The Hitch]

What sort of questions?

A number of staff and one rider left some of whom admitted to doping in the past, all reported.

Leinders depature was mentioned and questions have been asked.

These things are not going to be back page headlines though, because some footballer has pulled his hamstring

If questions were asked about leinders then how comes all through the Armstrong affair it was said that wiggins being clean is proof that the Armstrong era is over.

no one said - and though there are some questions about leinders we think the current tdf winner is clean. It was all 100% matter of fact. Even at the sports personality of the year. Even in newspapers much later.

 

[thehog]

A step in the right direction. I wonder if Sky will do the same?

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...nco-squad-for-Tour-de-France-documentary.aspx

The NOS media company has hailed an agreement with the Blanco Pro Cycling team as being one which will it says will allow a high level of transparency about the team’s participation in this year’s Tour.

The squad, which continues the structure of the previous Rabobank team, has given a green light for NOS Sport reporter Kees Jongkind to be embedded in the Blanco Pro Cycling Team for three weeks during the Tour de France.

He and a camera crew will have no-holds barred access to the team for a documentary titled Inside Blanco, which will be screened this autumn by NOS.

“This is a unique project – a fantastic opportunity to follow cycling from the inside out,” said Maarten Nooter, the Editor-in-Chief of NOS Sport. “Now, right when so much has gone wrong and the sport is facing a credibility crisis, we’ve been able to strike a deal with Blanco to open all doors.

“This is an extraordinary but also a courageous step by the team, especially when it occurs during the most important cycling race on the calendar.”

 

[BYOP88]

I still love your sig' Hitch. Seems the 2012 Wiggans forgot about it. But to be fair Leinders only worked for 40 minutes at Sky.