thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:
DCMS had a pretty wide remit of issues to be investigated. Clearly, Bradley Jiffins was just one aspect.
I think we've seen all we are going to see. There will be no further revelations. They will just highlight the poor structural governance and probably mention that Sky's behaviour before and after the Jiffy does not look like the actions of an ethical team. Any allusion to cheating will be couched in vague terms.
In other words, Sky have got away with it.
True but hilarious to think Cookson has been head of BC, help set up Team Sky and the UCI President and presided all over these collective shambles and then asks for Sky’s reputation to be ‘reinstated’. What a total loon.
I've several thoughts about Cookson. Firstly, that I am amazed he could ever get to be head of BC, let alone head of UCI. How the hell did he manage it?
It's worrying on a couple of levels in so far as it reveals the paucity of talent in BC, in that
he was the best they could do. In a sense that should inform the reasons behind the shambles that we watched unfold with the whole BC/Sky jiffy stuff. But I also wonder the motivations behind those who voted him in to the stewardship of the UCI. They knew they weren't voting in dynamism and drive. Maybe they wanted somebody too inept to be able to rock the boat. Of course, on a large salary, he wasn't going to say no.
I'm also minded of something a friend, who does logistics for a pro team, told me about just how difficult it is for an aspirationally clean team to spot and stop a rogue rider who covertly dopes.
I'm not referring to Sky here (I don't think they are aspirationally clean), but more the larger issue of whether an utterly inept BC could even have the wherewithal to counter a clever and underhand manager like Brailsford.
I think in some respects this has been reflected in the UKAD letter you posted here, as well as the DCMS findings.