Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 521 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 13, 2009
504
0
9,580
In case the Fuentes investigation is interested
Libertine Seguros said:
Я часто сижу и грущу, я умею плакать без слез.....

A menudo me siento y estoy triste, puedo llorar sin lágrimas.
Yo los ojos vacíos y la pregunta cada respuesta es "sí".
Pero en la mañana de camino a la tienda, a menudo quieren lo que no lo es.
A mí me enseñaron a soñar con pintura fresca periódicos "Sojuzpechat".
Tengo que tener en cuenta, puedo ganar dinero,
Dinero falso.

A menudo voy al cine, vacío, como el tranvía checo
Ver película extranjera, tratar de atraparme, me
Siempre lo mismo.

Pero por la mañana en el camino a permanecer unidos que queremos no está allí,
Me enseñó a esperar a que los periódicos de pintura fresca ", Soyuzpechat".
Tenemos que tener en cuenta, hacemos dinero,
Dinero falso.

Cuando camines delante de mí, no hacen una cara
Si no te importa lo que digamos sobre el país
Y "Soyuzpechat"
Recuerde que ganar dinero,
Dinero falso.
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
zalacain said:
Not the exact words but the same sentiment
http://x2t.com/198638

It's nothing like the same sentiment. With the greatest of respect you don't even need to read beyond the title of that piece you linked to:

"Dave Brailsford on why telling the truth is only part of the process"

How some of you can read 'the truth is not that important' or 'Brailsford wants nobody to talk' from this calls into question your ability to comprehend English. The key word is 'process'. He's saying telling the truth is not enough...there needs to be something done with it. That is the polar opposite to trying to stifle truth.


I mean, we are all used to Hoggie's wilful mendacity, we expect that from him, it's what he does to try and get attention, but the rest of you? Come on.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
often sit and I long, I am able to cry without tears.
I do empty Ieyes and each question I answer pro.
But in the morning on a way to a booth I often want, that is not present.
Me the fresh paint of newspapers "Союзпечать" has learned to dream.
I should be well informed, I do money,
False money.

I often go to cinema, empty, as a Czech tram,
I look foreign film, try me catch, I
Always one.

But in the morning on a way to a booth we together want that are not present,
The fresh paint of newspapers, "Союзпечать" has learned to wait for me.
We should be well informed, we do money,
False money.

When you go by me, do not do such person,
As if to you to spit, that the country will tell about us
And "Союзпечать"
Remember, we do money,
False money.
__________________
ht
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Joachim said:
It's nothing like the same sentiment. With the greatest of respect you don't even need to read beyond the title of that piece you linked to:

"Dave Brailsford on why telling the truth is only part of the process"

How some of you can read 'the truth is not that important' or 'Brailsford wants nobody to talk' from this calls into question your ability to comprehend English. The key word is 'process'. He's saying telling the truth is not enough...there needs to be something done with it. That is the polar opposite to trying to stifle truth.


I mean, we are all used to Hoggie's wilful mendacity, we expect that from him, it's what he does to try and get attention, but the rest of you? Come on.

The 'something that would be done with it' is outlined in black and white by the UCIIC's published statement on Friday's hearing. It would enable a detailed and forencic examination of the allegations made in USADA's RD, and this proposed process is supported by all the serious bodies with an interest in cleaning up the sport.

Brailsford is in effect saying he disagrees with going forward with this vitally necessary process. Anybody's guess as to why.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
sublimit said:
This is it, anybody else making that same statement by Brailsford would be ignored. I suppose Brailsford should be flattered that everything he says is analyzed to a ridiculous extent and then deliberately misinterpreted as per usual to suit the needs of the clinicians.

Firstly, that statement made by others would not be ignored - if Riis or Bruyneel had made it there would probably have been a page or two of "typical Riis/Bruyneel" and everybody would be broadly in agreement that it was a vile omerta-supporting remark and the thread would drop off the front page. Brailsford is unique in many respects, one of which is the number of posters willing to defend statements like this. Another respect in which he is unique is that he is the only man who is the boss of the team that most recently won the Tour de France while claiming to be not only clean but also transparent. With this in mind, can you explain why his omerta-supporting remarks don't deserve to be picked up on?

As SundayRider excellently summarised my post upthread, the truth and no consequences is better than a lie and no consequences. Brailsford didn't say "I support T&R but we need to go further", what he effectively said was "Here's a version of T&R that doesn't go far enough. Since this version doesn't go far enough let's not do it. If we aren't doing that version, let's not do it at all". Hey presto, you have omerta. If only Brailsford would organise some kind of Q&A where we could quiz him about the fact that these omerta-supporting statements are completely at odds with his team's PR.
 
May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
Grandillusion said:
Sorry LS forgot to ask on the abysmal translation, who's the poet then?

Not likely to be Kafka, but the nightmarishly surreal surely has some traction in explaining blood-doped professional sport.

Dave.
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Caruut said:
Brailsford didn't say "I support T&R but we need to go further", what he effectively said was "Here's a version of T&R that doesn't go far enough. Since this version doesn't go far enough let's not do it.

Sorry, where does he even intimate that the T&R process should not happen?
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Joachim said:
It's nothing like the same sentiment. With the greatest of respect you don't even need to read beyond the title of that piece you linked to:

"Dave Brailsford on why telling the truth is only part of the process"

How some of you can read 'the truth is not that important' or 'Brailsford wants nobody to talk' from this calls into question your ability to comprehend English. The key word is 'process'. He's saying telling the truth is not enough...there needs to be something done with it. That is the polar opposite to trying to stifle truth.


I mean, we are all used to Hoggie's wilful mendacity, we expect that from him, it's what he does to try and get attention, but the rest of you? Come on.

It is his unwillingness to propose what should be done after that makes me feel he is throwing water on the fires of progress. The truth for truth's sake is still a good thing. Brailsford, for example, would never have hired Leinders if there had been a T&R in 2009. We would know a lot more about the make-up of present teams - who is tainted and who is relatively clean. These are things that are both worth knowing and likely to reflect badly on Brailsford. Hence the negative reaction when he appears skeptical of the process.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Joachim said:
Sorry, where does he even intimate that the T&R process should not happen?

I suppose it's just the tone of his comments - all negativity and no solution proposed. If he is who he says he is I think his reaction should be "This is the best thing for clean cycling since we invented the test for EPO. We can go further but this is great anyway". He doesn't say how he wants to go further, personally I think one of the only ways T&R does work is if you minimise consequences to allow the truth to come out. If you don't, then you're right back to square one with no-one saying anything. All he does is cast doubt on things. No positivity. Doesn't that worry you, if you want cleaner cycling?
 
May 26, 2009
3,688
7
13,485
Joachim said:
Sorry, where does he even intimate that the T&R process should not happen?

Indeed, I don't read that either in the article.

I do see another lie popping up about Leinders... now he does say he was involved in the hiring process something which he denied earlier on :rolleyes:

As I have said before it's absolutely crazy to think they didn't look into his past (2007, a meagre 3 years) and didn't check his Rasmussen link. And there is no way they wouldn't have gotten the info had they done a cursory check. It's not hidden, it was an official report of the Sponsor, a court decision and severall articles in major newspapers.

But I don't see the obstruction of T&R commision.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Franklin said:
But I don't see the obstruction of T&R commision.

I think I perhaps overstated to begin with. Does it not strike you as odd how negative he is about it though?
 
May 26, 2009
3,688
7
13,485
Caruut said:
I think I perhaps overstated to begin with. Does it not strike you as odd how negative he is about it though?

I share his scepticism. Without a clear (rudimentary)plan what to do with the confessions and some stated goals it's likely to go to waste. Clean cycling is simply to big and vague a goal. We all want peace on earth.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Franklin said:
I share his scepticism. Without a clear (rudimentary)plan what to do with the confessions and some stated goals it's likely to go to waste. Clean cycling is simply to big and vague a goal. We all want peace on earth.
Given the fact Brailsford was on the hotel room with Millar when he got EPO busted and believed Rob Hayles when he was crying like a baby when dear Rob phoned his wife [after his hematocrit positive] Brailsford should not be a benchmark for whether or not a T&R committee would or should work, in my book.
 
Jul 13, 2012
441
0
0
Caruut said:
I suppose it's just the tone of his comments - all negativity and no solution proposed. If he is who he says he is I think his reaction should be "This is the best thing for clean cycling since we invented the test for EPO. We can go further but this is great anyway". He doesn't say how he wants to go further, personally I think one of the only ways T&R does work is if you minimise consequences to allow the truth to come out. If you don't, then you're right back to square one with no-one saying anything. All he does is cast doubt on things. No positivity. Doesn't that worry you, if you want cleaner cycling?

My greater concern would certainly be what the UCI are going to do with the information garnered from a T&R process, Jorg Jaschke anyone?

I suppose if USADA got all the information released it into the public domain, but had done nothing beyond that, I guess that would've been fine?
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Grandillusion said:
The 'something that would be done with it' is outlined in black and white by the UCIIC's published statement on Friday's hearing. It would enable a detailed and forencic examination of the allegations made in USADA's RD, and this proposed process is supported by all the serious bodies with an interest in cleaning up the sport.

Brailsford is in effect saying he disagrees with going forward with this vitally necessary process. Anybody's guess as to why.

Is he? That is an inference too far.

Besides, to even begin to question his words you'd have to know when he said them. Before UCIIC statement on Friday, or after...
 
May 26, 2009
3,688
7
13,485
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Given the fact Brailsford was on the hotel room with Millar when he got EPO busted and believed Rob Hayles when he was crying like a baby when dear Rob phoned his wife [after his hematocrit positive] Brailsford should not be a benchmark for whether or not a T&R committee would or should work, in my book.

Well, I don't think his reasoning is flawed. My dislike for Dave Brailsford doesn't stop me reading what he says and in this case I think he has a point.

Now if he would be a good member of the T&R commision? You know how I think of him and his "trustworthiness". I think he's a bit like the wooden boy. ;)
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Caruut said:
I suppose it's just the tone of his comments - all negativity and no solution proposed. If he is who he says he is I think his reaction should be "This is the best thing for clean cycling since we invented the test for EPO. We can go further but this is great anyway". He doesn't say how he wants to go further, personally I think one of the only ways T&R does work is if you minimise consequences to allow the truth to come out. If you don't, then you're right back to square one with no-one saying anything. All he does is cast doubt on things. No positivity. Doesn't that worry you, if you want cleaner cycling?

He is casting doubt that getting riders to confess, with the promise of immunity as the sole element of the process, will do much to get us out of the dark hole of doping.

For what it is worth, I think he's right. He wants something that would guarantee preventing a slide back to the bad old days.

As for your suggestion that he offers no solutions, this is because it needs careful consideration with all stakeholders involved in the discussion. Not just a sound bite from him.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Oct 30, 2011
2,639
0
0
Franklin said:
I share his scepticism. Without a clear (rudimentary)plan what to do with the confessions and some stated goals it's likely to go to waste. Clean cycling is simply to big and vague a goal. We all want peace on earth.

I suppose I am of the opinion that even the truth alone is a positive enough outcome from this whole process after over 100 years of lies.