Team Sky and BC Books.

[wendybnt]

Not really, Bennotti, I just disagree,

The only reason somebody would find it "oppressive" that Sky are "shoving mistruths down your throat" is if they fixate on it. I just see a team being asked if they are doping and they reply 'no' and come up with some bullsh1t.

Contador had dodgy steak.

 

[Benotti69]

I dont see so many defending Contador, but as MSTR put it so well;

"We're tired of being treated like children. We're tired of the arrogance carried by riders and teams as they lead fans by their whimsy into believing a fiction.

That is what this thread is about. It is about a team, who just like any other, is up to no good. But unlike any other, is working so hard, and so successfully, at shoving mistruths, myths and propaganda down our throats. It does so at an oppressive scale"

A fan wouldn't find it oppressive, they would revel in it and they obviously do and blindly defend it and call others who dont haters....

Armstrong part deux.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I dont see so many defending Contador, but as MSTR put it so well;

"We're tired of being treated like children. We're tired of the arrogance carried by riders and teams as they lead fans by their whimsy into believing a fiction.

That is what this thread is about. It is about a team, who just like any other, is up to no good. But unlike any other, is working so hard, and so successfully, at shoving mistruths, myths and propaganda down our throats. It does so at an oppressive scale"

A fan wouldn't find it oppressive, they would revel in it and they obviously do and blindly defend it and call others who dont haters....

Armstrong part deux.

agree with that. but I also like to think with my own brain, and not pay attention to that. instead of getting angry, ignore that. and I root for Sky (a big % of that comes from the clinic obsession for them), I am blocked by Froome, and never bought their books.
I think not paying attention to the British Sky fans and the Sky narrative prepared for them (just as not paying attention to my fellow Italians Aru/nibali worshippers) is the best way not to get angry and pissed about ANY fecking word these teams "try to show down our throats"

 

[wendybnt]

I don't think you get it, Benotti. It isn't about defending Contador it is about being blinded by Sky and not realising the others are doing exactly the same.

Nibali "I'm a symbol of clean sport"

Contador "It was the steak"

A fan wouldn't find it oppressive, they would revel in it and they obviously do and blindly defend it and call others who dont haters....

Armstrong part deux.

Is anybody here blindly defending anything?

If that is aimed at me, then you clearly haven't read what I've said. I'm not defending anybody, I'm accusing others of the same thing.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

http://stevetilford.com/2015/04/03/astana-is-a-symbol-of-clean-and-honest-sport-vincenzo-nibali/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/16937377

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-says-he-believes-contador-is-clean/


....because the other main GT riders never pretend to be clean

But Riis for example. Despite of claiming to be the father of new clean cycling with his internal passport created by Rasmus Damsgaard et al did not have the same ressources or connections that team sky have today.
It was never about creating clean tour winner as Riis claimed in his book he did with Sastre.

When Sastre won the TDF Riis alledgedly told Prudhomme "here you have your clean TDF winner!
Prudhomme replied "I know".

This had nothing to do with offering a clean TDF winner but offering someone who would appear clean to the broad cycling base, because Sastre was a quiet seemingly sympathetic guy with no hard evidence attached.

Things changed after that when Sky came with their marginal gains, enlarging the cycling "fanbase" with 20%.

All this while having a major media cooperation running the "cleans" narrative.

Some people jumped the wagon back then with Riis. You can hardly blaim people for developing an up-going curve of criticism towards winners. And the winners (being Sky) had basically no experience in road racing and despite of this has won thre times the TDF in 1/3 of the period the expert doper Riis did (win one) as team owner.

The point is I do think ressources matter.

Especially when it comes to "selling your man". whomever it may be at the moment.

And that they matter a lot.

 

[thehog]

There is the books and then there's procuring for LiveStrong esque donations to the BotStrong British Cycling Fund;

 

[wendybnt]

http://stevetilford.com/2015/04/03/astana-is-a-symbol-of-clean-and-honest-sport-vincenzo-nibali/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/16937377

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-says-he-believes-contador-is-clean/


....because the other main GT riders never pretend to be clean

But Riis for example. Despite of claiming to be the father of new clean cycling with his internal passport created by Rasmus Damsgaard et al did not have the same ressources or connections that team sky have today.
It was never about creating clean tour winner as Riis claimed in his book he did with Sastre.

When Sastre won the TDF Riis alledgedly told Prudhomme "here you have your clean TDF winner!
Prudhomme replied "I know".

This had nothing to do with offering a clean TDF winner but offering someone who would appear clean to the broad cycling base, because Sastre was a quiet seemingly sympathetic guy with no hard evidence attached.

Things changed after that when Sky came with their marginal gains, enlarging the cycling "fanbase" with 20%.

All this while having a major media cooperation running the "cleans" narrative.

Some people jumped the wagon back then with Riis. You can hardly blaim people for developing an up-going curve of criticism towards winners. And the winners (being Sky) had basically no experience in road racing and despite of this has won thre times the TDF in 1/3 of the period the expert doper Riis did (win one) as team owner.

The point is I do think ressources matter.

Especially when it comes to "selling your man". whomever it may be at the moment.

And that they matter a lot.

Since Sky started they have won 3 out of 15 GTs. There are other winners, and not one of them is running a "dirty" narrative.

Sky have a business model heavily centred around media. Why is that such a surprise? The narrative is precisely the same, they just have a ready made engine to spread it.

 

[wendybnt]

There is the books and then there's procuring for LiveStrong esque donations to the BotStrong British Cycling Fund;

Shock horror.

Corporate bash for a sports team. Its a first.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

http://stevetilford.com/2015/04/03/astana-is-a-symbol-of-clean-and-honest-sport-vincenzo-nibali/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/16937377

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-says-he-believes-contador-is-clean/


....because the other main GT riders never pretend to be clean

But Riis for example. Despite of claiming to be the father of new clean cycling with his internal passport created by Rasmus Damsgaard et al did not have the same ressources or connections that team sky have today.
It was never about creating clean tour winner as Riis claimed in his book he did with Sastre.

When Sastre won the TDF Riis alledgedly told Prudhomme "here you have your clean TDF winner!
Prudhomme replied "I know".

This had nothing to do with offering a clean TDF winner but offering someone who would appear clean to the broad cycling base, because Sastre was a quiet seemingly sympathetic guy with no hard evidence attached.

Things changed after that when Sky came with their marginal gains, enlarging the cycling "fanbase" with 20%.

All this while having a major media cooperation running the "cleans" narrative.

Some people jumped the wagon back then with Riis. You can hardly blaim people for developing an up-going curve of criticism towards winners. And the winners (being Sky) had basically no experience in road racing and despite of this has won thre times the TDF in 1/3 of the period the expert doper Riis did (win one) as team owner.

The point is I do think ressources matter.

Especially when it comes to "selling your man". whomever it may be at the moment.

And that they matter a lot.

Since Sky started they have won 3 out of 15 GTs. There are other winners, and not one of them is running a "dirty" narrative.

Sky have a business model heavily centred around media. Why is that such a surprise? The narrative is precisely the same, they just have a ready made engine to spread it.

3 out of 11 gts makes it sound so average. But not all gts are equal. They have won the tour de France and 3 times in 4 years and in fact since 2010 the only time they have not.won the tour is when they crashed out.

 

[wendybnt]

Yes, that is true, but if Sky didn't exist there would be other people winning...Nibali and Contador, all implicated in some way and all maintaining their cleanliness.

Nibali "I am a symbol of clean sport".

I really don't get the obsession and anger. I just don't pay any attention to Sky promo stuff. I don't watch the tv programmes, I don't read the books. I don't read the Brailsford interviews. Its really simple. I didn't with Armstrong either. In fact, I didn't really watch him race either. Its the same story though. If Armstrong hadn't existed, Ullrich would have won.

Nothing has changed. Sky are cheating other cheats. Stop with this BS like they are the first or only team to have ever doped, and the only team to be pretending to be clean.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles etc. Same ***, different day.

 

[wendybnt]

I didn't watch Indurain either, by the way. He really started it, in terms of GT dominance and EPO, in my opinion.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I dont see so many defending Contador, but as MSTR put it so well;

"We're tired of being treated like children. We're tired of the arrogance carried by riders and teams as they lead fans by their whimsy into believing a fiction.

That is what this thread is about. It is about a team, who just like any other, is up to no good. But unlike any other, is working so hard, and so successfully, at shoving mistruths, myths and propaganda down our throats. It does so at an oppressive scale"

A fan wouldn't find it oppressive, they would revel in it and they obviously do and blindly defend it and call others who dont haters....

Armstrong part deux.

agree with that. but I also like to think with my own brain, and not pay attention to that. instead of getting angry, ignore that. and I root for Sky (a big % of that comes from the clinic obsession for them), I am blocked by Froome, and never bought their books.
I think not paying attention to the British Sky fans and the Sky narrative prepared for them (just as not paying attention to my fellow Italians Aru/nibali worshippers) is the best way not to get angry and pissed about ANY fecking word these teams "try to show down our throats"

Nibali certainly does seem to be pushing a BS I am proof cycling is clean narrative.

Aru I don't think he is. Hes constantly openly heroworshipping contador. Contador who's still maintaining the illusion of having never doped

That's at least several steps down from sky, who allegedly can't even bear to look at pictures of dopers so tear them out.

But I'm writing to ask you pastronef, since I've seen bits of pieces of rais giro shows but not all of them, when Stefano, who we all know doped to win that giro and certainly wasn't clean when he was flying away in the mountains in his late 30's, talks on those giro shows, does he mention doping and do they claim it's all clean now and do they identify Aru as a new clean talent, or do they just talk about the race?

 

[wendybnt]

Seriously? "I'm a symbol of clean sport?"

That is the most extreme version of it. Sky are saying 'we are clean", " we have a clean British winner".

That doesn't compare to Nibali holding himself up in a quasi-religious manner as the icon of cycling purity!

 

[mrhender]

Nibali would never have pushed the clean agenda that much hadn't it been for the Astana license debacle and the general (media) distrust towards his team. He didn't start out selling himself as the new "black". Unless of course he did in italian media but I doubt there was as much a good story to tell as with the Sky team.

 

[wendybnt]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I'm still waiting for Benotti to put forward his evidence when he made much the same point. as I genuinely don't know the answer.
I think, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong, that Sky promising a 'clean British winner' was aimed at the British non-cycling fan public, and it had to be said by Sky because pre-Sky and pre-Armstrong, if you mentioned pro-cycling to a Brit the one thing they were guaranteed to reply was "they all take drugs, don't they". I'm not really convinced that those same Brits have suddenly become naieve. they are just prepared to get behind the local boy in exactly the same way that the Spanish, the Italians, and everybody else is.

Oh, and by the way, the media distrust of Astana didn't just pop out of nowhere. And by the same token, Sky wouldn't have come up with have the stuff they have if Wiggins and Froome hadn't been subjected to media distrust! It is no different.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Yes, that is true, but if Sky didn't exist there would be other people winning...Nibali and Contador, all implicated in some way and all maintaining their cleanliness.

Nibali "I am a symbol of clean sport".

I really don't get the obsession and anger. I just don't pay any attention to Sky promo stuff. I don't watch the tv programmes, I don't read the books. I don't read the Brailsford interviews. Its really simple. I didn't with Armstrong either. In fact, I didn't really watch him race either. Its the same story though. If Armstrong hadn't existed, Ullrich would have won.

Nothing has changed. Sky are cheating other cheats. Stop with this BS like they are the first or only team to have ever doped, and the only team to be pretending to be clean.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles etc. Same ****, different day.

You don't, but sooo many others do. And that's the problem. You don't believe the hype, and it's good to see. The sport suffers when it appeals to people who do.

You can compare the Nibali's statement to a Sky statement, but comparing that statement with the media machine of BC and sky don't compare when it comes to influencing the market, fans and the sport.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Yes, that is true, but if Sky didn't exist there would be other people winning...Nibali and Contador, all implicated in some way and all maintaining their cleanliness.

Nibali "I am a symbol of clean sport".

I really don't get the obsession and anger. I just don't pay any attention to Sky promo stuff. I don't watch the tv programmes, I don't read the books. I don't read the Brailsford interviews. Its really simple. I didn't with Armstrong either. In fact, I didn't really watch him race either. Its the same story though. If Armstrong hadn't existed, Ullrich would have won.

Nothing has changed. Sky are cheating other cheats. Stop with this BS like they are the first or only team to have ever doped, and the only team to be pretending to be clean.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles etc. Same ****, different day.

You don't, but sooo many others do. And that's the problem. You don't believe the hype, and it's good to see. The sport suffers when it appeals to people who do.

You can compare the Nibali's statement to a Sky statement, but comparing that statement with the media machine of BC and sky don't compare when it comes to influencing the market, fans and the sport.

I can't dispute that. Its true. Sky have a media machine that is at the same time awe-inspiring and nauseating.

But it doesn't actually matter.

The bottom line is if Sky didn't exist, another cheat would still win. If you fixate on one team or rider the problem will just keep recurring. We've seen this for nearly 20 years since Festina. Landis, Armstrong being the biggest examples, and after each of their exposures things just went straight back to normal immediately after. If Sky go down, another doper will win. Same old, same old. trying to make out that one team/rider are the embodiment of cheating just ensures that it will continue.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Seriously? "I'm a symbol of clean sport?"

That is the most extreme version of it. Sky are saying 'we are clean", " we have a clean British winner".

That doesn't compare to Nibali holding himself up in a quasi-religious manner as the icon of cycling purity!

I'm pretty sure I've heard sky and their journos say similar things dozens of times.

But yes, that was when I lost all respect for Nibali.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It seems a lot more clever this time around.

 

[snccdcno]

As a big Team Sky fan can I get some reading recommendations ITT?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Come on, guys. This is a real stretch. Books about cyclists and cycling are NOTHING to do with doping. This thread shouldn't be here, and if it were anyone but The Hitch who had started it, it would have been moved some time ago.

This is ridiculous. So The Hitch posts something anti-Sky, and people object, and then the anti-Sky brigade say "ah, but that's because you're a Sky apologist". How are we to judge whether anyone is doping by how many books they produce. And Cavendish?

Everyone knows (at least, those without blinkers) that, for a lot of those in sport, it is a short career. It may look like you're cashing in when you're 20-30, but when your career is over at 40, it's a long time until you can draw your pension at 65 or whatever.

The thread began by discussing the scope of Sky/BC's literary presence, then started to talk about the authors, and their motivations. Then JimmyFingers complained that it was another sky bashing thread, which sent the thread into 4 pages of the pros and cons of discussing the pros and cons of sky.

If we stopped posts like this, we could go back to talking about the profits seen by authors, publishers, and the riders themselves. We could talk about why or why don't other teams and riders publish to such a large extent. We could talk about other rider's books, their authors, and how their motivation compares.

But no, go ahead derailing this thread by claiming that the thread is derailing from real conversation.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Seriously? "I'm a symbol of clean sport?"

That is the most extreme version of it. Sky are saying 'we are clean", " we have a clean British winner".

That doesn't compare to Nibali holding himself up in a quasi-religious manner as the icon of cycling purity!

I'm pretty sure I've heard sky and their journos say similar things dozens of times.

But yes, that was when I lost all respect for Nibali.

Why did you have any respect for him before?

But yes, you are right, Froome came out with that stuff about being willing to be 'the spokesman for clean cycling' or something similar. I cant remember how he phrased it now. They all come out with it when challenged on suspicions rather than concrete evidence that can't be disputed without looking silly (Contador's steak, JTL's pub crawl, Landis's bourbon etc).

 

[wendybnt]

Come on, guys. This is a real stretch. Books about cyclists and cycling are NOTHING to do with doping. This thread shouldn't be here, and if it were anyone but The Hitch who had started it, it would have been moved some time ago.

This is ridiculous. So The Hitch posts something anti-Sky, and people object, and then the anti-Sky brigade say "ah, but that's because you're a Sky apologist". How are we to judge whether anyone is doping by how many books they produce. And Cavendish?

Everyone knows (at least, those without blinkers) that, for a lot of those in sport, it is a short career. It may look like you're cashing in when you're 20-30, but when your career is over at 40, it's a long time until you can draw your pension at 65 or whatever.

The thread began by discussing the scope of Sky/BC's literary presence, then started to talk about the authors, and their motivations. Then JimmyFingers complained that it was another sky bashing thread, which sent the thread into 4 pages of the pros and cons of discussing the pros and cons of sky.

If we stopped posts like this, we could go back to talking about the profits seen by authors, publishers, and the riders themselves. We could talk about why or why don't other teams and riders publish to such a large extent. We could talk about other rider's books, their authors, and how their motivation compares.

But no, go ahead derailing this thread by claiming that the thread is derailing from real conversation.

To be fair that isn't quite accurate. The thread has developed. First it was about the output of books about Sky related stuff, and I was in agreement with the thread starter, then it seemed to transmute into implying that Sky use the output of literature about them to spread the 'we are clean' message, as if it is they and only they that do this. I explained my view why Sky, in particular, may have felt the need to do this (in the face of almost total cynicism from the potential Brit fanbase), and pointed out that no other big rider is admitting that they dope but instead are squealing every bit as much as Sky.

I suppose you are right in that if Sky's intention was to convert a cynical public, then they have succeeded, although I'm not sure how we'd go about quantifying that. Book sale numbers maybe?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The thread began by discussing the scope of Sky/BC's literary presence, then started to talk about the authors, and their motivations. Then JimmyFingers complained that it was another sky bashing thread, which sent the thread into 4 pages of the pros and cons of discussing the pros and cons of sky.

If we stopped posts like this, we could go back to talking about the profits seen by authors, publishers, and the riders themselves. We could talk about why or why don't other teams and riders publish to such a large extent. We could talk about other rider's books, their authors, and how their motivation compares.

But no, go ahead derailing this thread by claiming that the thread is derailing from real conversation.

And again MSTR for the winner.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The thread began by discussing the scope of Sky/BC's literary presence, then started to talk about the authors, and their motivations. Then JimmyFingers complained that it was another sky bashing thread, which sent the thread into 4 pages of the pros and cons of discussing the pros and cons of sky.

If we stopped posts like this, we could go back to talking about the profits seen by authors, publishers, and the riders themselves. We could talk about why or why don't other teams and riders publish to such a large extent. We could talk about other rider's books, their authors, and how their motivation compares.

But no, go ahead derailing this thread by claiming that the thread is derailing from real conversation.

And again MSTR for the winner.

+1