Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

If you run a clean team, then yes, that would annoy you.

Sorry, nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. Davey did not run a clean team.

He himself already said he loosened his zero tolerance. He certainly knew of the dope ties of some of his staff. He knew of the Rogers Ferrari link.

You can not deny these facts. Dave is very pragmatic when it comes to hiring staff and running a team. I certainly don't know if his riders dope, but he has no problem working with tainted people.

And this makes him an hypocrite. It's okay for him to hire them, but an amnesty is all of a sudden too much.

This is what makes Dave so annoying. A cold pragmatic liar who is posing as running a zero-tolerance team. The evidence against this is rock solid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Which is why Brailsford is wrong - it is not the sole element of the process.
T&R is not just to find out the methods only - as DB alluded to. It is a process to to fully understand the full level of doping, only when that is known can proper solutions can then be applied.

 

[Joachim]

Like Yates and Rogers?

Yeah scot free

Both just got pushed out of their jobs. Neither had enough against them for an official sanction.

Do you even think about what you post?

 

[Franklin]

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.

Will we get the truth?

You need to have some clear defined goals or you won't get anything meaningful at all.

Confessions? Well, I think we know that the rot is huge. We don't need more horror stories if there is no plan to use them to heal the sport. Otherwise it's just sensationalism.

 

[Joachim]

Which is why Brailsford is wrong - it is not the sole element of the process.
T&R is not just to find out the methods only - as DB alluded to. It is a process to to fully understand the full level of doping, only when that is known can proper solutions can then be applied.

Quite. It's the 'proper' solutions (outcome, if it helps), that he is wanting clarified.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Quite. It's the 'proper' solutions (outcome, if it helps), that he is wanting clarified.

Which you cannot get until the process is over.

 

[thehog]

Sorry, nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. Davey did not run a clean team.

He himself already said he loosened his zero tolerance. He certainly knew of the dope ties of some of his staff. He knew of the Rogers Ferrari link.

You can not deny these facts. Dave is very pragmatic when it comes to hiring staff and running a team. I certainly don't know if his riders dope, but he has no problem working with tainted people.

And this makes him an hypocrite. It's okay for him to hire them, but an amnesty is all of a sudden too much.

This is what makes Dave so annoying. A cold pragmatic liar who is posing as running a zero-tolerance team. The evidence against this is rock solid.

Excelletn post.

One of the comment on the same article is very good and embodies my sentiments well.

• I tend not to listen to much of what Brailsford says regarding anti-doping efforts these days. He wasn't involved in road cycling during the 90s and 2000s doping peak, and his involvement in track cycling would have kept him largely insulated from the doping culture on the continent.

The promises he made in 2009 of the need for transparency and accountability have largely been replaced by a new policy of sticking his head in the sand. Mick Rogers and Juan Antonio Flecha both left as a result (albeit on the sly) of Sky's "zero-doping policy" but are still active in the sport. Hardly "acting on the information that you find and doing something tangible with that information to make sure it doesn’t happen in the future."

His binary thinking of "all dopers are bad and must be punished" needs to be replaced with a more nuanced view accepting that a large number of riders who doped in the past were as much victims of the cycling Zeitgeist of the past two decades. Cooperating with riders who made mistakes is imperative to help root out the doctors, DSs, owners and other staff who oversaw the doping.

 

[Joachim]

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.

It is a positive outcome, but it isn't a solution. This is what Brailsford is getting at.

 

[Franklin]

Yeah scot free

Both just got pushed out of their jobs. Neither had enough against them for an official sanction.

Sorry Joachim, get of it.

Running a zero-tolerance team with those people is a joke. If hiding behind a lack of positive tests is the norm we can cheerfully say Riis is running a clean team.

Dave isn't a spring chicken, he fully well knew that the rumours were substantial and he has first hand experience how bad cycling is. Hiding behind a technicality and claim he runs a clean ship is just covering up for him.

What do you have to gain by defending this liar? Would it end your world if you just faced the truth and realised that this guy clearly is bad news?

Liars need to leave this sport.

 

[Caruut]

Will we get the truth?

You need to have some clear defined goals or you won't get anything meaningful at all.

Confessions? Well, I think we know that the rot is huge. We don't need more horror stories if there is no plan to use them to heal the sport. Otherwise it's just sensationalism.

We know the rot is huge, that is for sure. I suppose my hope would be that we could build a clearer picture of what happened, who we should be blaming and stuff like that. Another hope would be that those who had left the sport might tell the truth simply to get a weight off their shoulders and those confessions might turn the heat up on some who are still involved and give us clearer ideas of what specific questions to answer and where to investigate.

My fear is that we face a choice between a no frills T&R or no T&R. People could have come forward before now - they have chosen not to. Attach too many consequences and goals to this process and I think there is a risk it is simply going to be more of the same. A few bans, a few whistleblowers shunned and professional cycling stumbles on as it always has. That is why Brailsford's words of caution sit so uncomfortably with me - I worry that a T&R with "concrete" conclusions simply won't work, and I think Brailsford knows that it won't.

 

[thehog]

If you come forward at the moment you’re labeled “scumbag” by the UCI.

Unless you’re David Miller with UCI connections and its all ok.

 

[Joachim]

Sorry Joachim, get of it.

Running a zero-tolerance team with those people is a joke. If hiding behind a lack of positive tests is the norm we can cheerfully say Riis is running a clean team.

Dave isn't a spring chicken, he fully well knew that the rumours were substantial and he has first hand experience how bad cycling is. Hiding behind a technicality and claim he runs a clean ship is just covering up for him.

What do you have to gain by defending this liar? Would it end your world if you just faced the truth and realised that this guy clearly is bad news?

Liars need to leave this sport.

The world isn't black and white, Franklin. Everything is nuanced when you get to a certain level. Everything

Please don't take offence at this, but in your working life, do you ever find that you have to negotiate at a high level with people you know are lying, but you still have to work with them? People you know are corrupt? I do. In fact, that is pretty much my working life. I see in Brailsford's words the sort of deft pragmatism you need to have if you work in a quagmire.

It's not black and white, Franklin. Once you reach a certain level, it's all shades of grey.

 

[ebandit]

who...............when?

If you come forward at the moment you’re labeled “scumbag” by the UCI.

who?...............................when?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The world isn't black and white, Franklin. Everything is nuanced when you get to a certain level. Everything

Please don't take offence at this, but in your working life, do you ever find that you have to negotiate at a high level with people you know are lying, but you still have to work with them? People you know are corrupt? I do. In fact, that is pretty much my working life. I see in Brailsford's words the sort of deft pragmatism you need to have if you work in a quagmire.

It's not black and white, Franklin. Once you reach a certain level, it's all shades of grey.

Davy doesn't see your shades of grey. He wanted Zero Tolerance, in fact it was so good he did it twice.

Very pragmatic to reward people who tell you the truth by firing them

 

[Joachim]

That's what happens if you join a clean team under false pretences.

 

[Froome19]

Sorry, nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. Davey did not run a clean team.

He himself already said he loosened his zero tolerance. He certainly knew of the dope ties of some of his staff. He knew of the Rogers Ferrari link.

You can not deny these facts. Dave is very pragmatic when it comes to hiring staff and running a team. I certainly don't know if his riders dope, but he has no problem working with tainted people.

And this makes him an hypocrite. It's okay for him to hire them, but an amnesty is all of a sudden too much.

This is what makes Dave so annoying. A cold pragmatic liar who is posing as running a zero-tolerance team. The evidence against this is rock solid.

How would you define a clean team?
I would say as a team who does not dope.

Yet you say that you are not sure if his riders dope yet it is definitely not clean.

A couple of other things. 1) Dave is doing what he does to make himself look as good as he can in the eyes of the knowledgless British public. That unfortunately has an impact on how he is pereceived by those more in the know. I am still not excusing what he says. 2) I don't think Dave at the current moment is saying it is Ok to hire these personnel. He is condemning it and however arrogant he may come across as being nevertheless he will surely admit that their hiring was a mistake on his behalf. 3) Was it really a mistake? Probably not. He wanted the best team and so he ignored doping pasts. 4) Now he goes back to the public and attempts to regain their faith saying how it really is intolerable. 5) This is all a PR scheme to keep the fans on the team's side. So is Millar's and so is Kimmage's for whatever it is worth. 6) Does that make him a doper? Nope. Does it merit a ridiculous number of posts on the topic. posts, but not the multitudes it has spewn forth.

 

[Caruut]

That's what happens if you join a clean team under false pretences.

Why did Brailsford let them in, though? I thought it was nuanced and grey and that he was a pragmatist. Or could he not see the quagmire for the filth?

 

[ebandit]

because we care

Very pragmatic to reward people who tell you the truth by firing them

dr m ............it's lovely that you care so much...........however

yates rogers etc have moved on...........they seem happy with

the arrangement..........do we hear them complaining?

 

[Caruut]

How would you define a clean team?
I would say as a team who does not dope.

Yet you say that you are not sure if his riders dope yet it is definitely not clean.

A couple of other things. 1) Dave is doing what he does to make himself look as good as he can in the eyes of the knowledgless British public. That unfortunately has an impact on how he is pereceived by those more in the know. I am still not excusing what he says. 2) I don't think Dave at the current moment is saying it is Ok to hire these personnel. He is condemning it and however arrogant he may come across as being nevertheless he will surely admit that their hiring was a mistake on his behalf. 3) Was it really a mistake? Probably not. He wanted the best team and so he ignored doping pasts. 4) Now he goes back to the public and attempts to regain their faith saying how it really is intolerable. 5) This is all a PR scheme to keep the fans on the team's side. So is Millar's and so is Kimmage's for whatever it is worth. 6) Does that make him a doper? Nope. Does it merit a ridiculous number of posts on the topic. posts, but not the multitudes it has spewn forth.

What the hell has Kimmage done to be lumbered in with these two low-lives?

When Sky's "proof" of cleanliness is their image (since there have been no solid facts put forth like profiles or anything) then the character of those involved is highly relevant. If you want people to believe your words but only back them up with "trust us" and give people loads of reasons not to trust then to me, you have to start suspecting that something is not as it seems. Throughout all of this, Sky have always been less clean than they seem. There is always one more lie hidden under the surface and at no point have they admitted that they were lies. That is what worries me.

 

[SundayRider]

I must have been dreaming when I watched the likes of Pantani, Riis and Indurain flying up hills on EPO

It is a positive outcome, but it isn't a solution. This is what Brailsford is getting at.

Yes but surely a positive outcome with no 'solution' is better than no outcome and no solution.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

dr m ............it's lovely that you care so much...........however

yates rogers etc have moved on...........they seem happy with

the arrangement..........do we hear them complaining?

'We' didn't hear them complaining, we didn't hear that they are happy.
We didn't hear from them at all.

 

[ebandit]

blah blah blah

'We' didn't hear them complaining, we didn't hear that they are happy.
We didn't hear from them at all.

believe me if they were NOT happy..............we would hear from them

 

[Franklin]

I see in Brailsford's words the sort of deft pragmatism you need to have if you work in a quagmire.

Nonsense.

I'm not a huge fan, but JV does it without these obvious lies.

The lies Dave told about his (non) involvement of the hiring of Leinders were not a neccesary evil. They were a clear cover up of his own blunder. He was involved, knew the truth and thought he could get away with it. The result is now that he's damaged.

Had he been true to his policy or at least been open about this from the start there wouldn't be such a black eye for his credibility.

And then to your question: I'm a contract manager. Lieing is a surefire way to loose a contract and to get your name blacklisted. Sure, there is stretching and even breaking of contract, but outright lies are very rare. Your reputation is what carries your business.

Dave didn't stretch, he simply told things which were absolutely untrue. And these things have tarnished his company and thus his riders and his sponsor. That's not deft pragmatism. That's egotistical missjudging a situation.

 

[Franklin]

believe me if they were NOT happy..............we would hear from them

So what is it? Do we have a zero tolerance punish the doper? or do we have a golden parachute arrangement?

Tell me ebandit, which of the two DB's we see are the real one? The one we hear? Or the one we see act?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

believe me if they were NOT happy..............we would hear from them

Just to clarify - people who left the the team without acknowledging their doping publicly are going to express their unhappiness that they were removed for doping?