The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[Susan Westemeyer]

Yup, since he is no longer with Sky he doesN't belong in this thread.....no more, please.

Susan

 

[thehog]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/535356/open-letter-from-steven-de-jongh.html

some fragments from De Jongh's Riis-esque confession.





a certain Aldirto cares to disagree.

ah, that explains your move to saxo!

My hope is Saxo don't get labelled dopers by Sky fans because they hired former Sky dopers.

That would be unfair.

I guess 2013 will tell us if Sky ZTP worked for Sky. Performance wise and perception wise.

Regardless 2013 will be a great season!

 

[sniper]

Yup, since he is no longer with Sky he doesN't belong in this thread.....no more, please.

Susan

that's a bit too simplistic, imo.
I think De Jongh's and Rogers' move to Saxo is among the more compelling pieces of circumstantial evidence against Sky.
If both were working clean at Sky, it is hard to see why Riis would be interested in them.
But I'll leave it at that!

 

[meat puppet]

that's a bit too simplistic, imo.
I think De Jongh's and Rogers' move to Saxo is among the more compelling pieces of circumstantial evidence against Sky.
If both were working clean at Sky, it is hard to see why Riis would be interested in them.
But I'll leave it at that!

Precisely.

And eagerness to disconnect this from SKY from the get go, well...

 

[RownhamHill]

that's a bit too simplistic, imo.
I think De Jongh's and Rogers' move to Saxo is among the more compelling pieces of circumstantial evidence against Sky.
If both were working clean at Sky, it is hard to see why Riis would be interested in them.
But I'll leave it at that!

So are you suggesting that Riis has a zero tolerance policy for anyone who might have had anything to do with clean cycling - regardless of their results in that time, and even if it was only for a season or two?

 

[sniper]

So are you suggesting that Riis has a zero tolerance policy for anyone who might have had anything to do with clean cycling - regardless of their results in that time, and even if it was only for a season or two?

let's just say Riis is clever and wants to win races and knows how to achieve that goal. It's not so hard to understand, really.
Riis is an unrepentant enabler, supporter and connoiseur of cycling PEDs. That's been documented independently by different observers. Sky-fans should draw some obvious common sense conclusions from the fact that Riis just hired two ex-Sky members.

 

[martinvickers]

let's just say Riis is clever and wants to win races and knows how to achieve that goal. It's not so hard to understand, really.
Riis is an unrepentant enabler, supporter and connoiseur of cycling PEDs. That's been documented independently by different observers. Sky-fans should draw some obvious common sense conclusions from the fact that Riis just hired two ex-Sky members.

Well, as a cycling fan, as opposed to a sky fan, The common sense conclusion is he wants to know their secrets.

That those secrets are a new and improved doping regime he doesn't know about is, however, pure speculation. Indeed, Riis may be one of the people speculating.

We shall see.

 

[Bavarianrider]

If we assume that Sky as well as Team Britain was hevily on Epo Z this year.
I guess there is a chance that the rest has catched up and we'll se more Sky like performances from other teams this year.

 

[thehog]

If we assume that Sky as well as Team Britain was hevily on Epo Z this year.
I guess there is a chance that the rest has catched up and we'll se more Sky like performances from other teams this year.

Yes. The speeds will start creeping up again.

The UCI can slow it back again but raising a passport case against a couple of mid-ranked riders. Ones not managed by D.McQuaid.

 

[RownhamHill]

let's just say Riis is clever and wants to win races and knows how to achieve that goal.

Yep, so far so good.

It's not so hard to understand, really.

Of course not. Let's think it through.

Sign a GC rider who can ride faster than the opposition. . . h'mm let's see, that Contador fella, he already rides for us. . . Tick

What else do we need, let's see, a team of riders to support GC captain. Could do with someone with a decent engine, and the ability to climb quick enough to put everyone under the kosh, for a climb or two or any given mountain stage. Let's call him a super domestique. What's that you say, the guy who played that exact role for last year's tour winner is available. Let's sign him then. That can't do any harm.

What else, tactical and backroom support for the team. We're a bit short in that department, OK let's look for someone with a bit of experience. Oh, what's that you say, a relatively junior DS who has been working for the team that won lots of races last year, he's a free agent. Seems like a sensible decision to sign him up.

Riis is an unrepentant enabler, supporter and connoiseur of cycling PEDs. That's been documented independently by different observers.

Fine.

Sky-fans should draw some obvious common sense conclusions from the fact that Riis just hired two ex-Sky members.

Which are what? Because he has a shady past, the only people he would ever employ are people who use drugs? Or because he wants to win he's likely to employ people with a pretty decent track record of, uhmm, winning? Because I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that Riis is on a personal crusade for dirty cycling. Is that really right?

 

[sniper]

...
Which are what? Because he has a shady past, the only people he would ever employ are people who use drugs? Or because he wants to win he's likely to employ people with a pretty decent track record of, uhmm, winning? Because I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that Riis is on a personal crusade for dirty cycling. Is that really right?

It is not about what this tells us about Riis. It is about what this tells us about De Jongh and Rogers, billboards of clean cycling whilst at Sky, now cheaply throwing their clean-cycling principles overboard by joining Saxo.

Shows us something we already knew: either (a) they didn't have any such principles or (b) money is stronger than clean cycling. Make your pick.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

You seem to be suggesting that Riis is on a personal crusade for dirty cycling. Is that really right?

Riis is old school. Being around the block lots of times. We know how he operates.

He does what it takes, in cycling that means doping.

 

[oldcrank]

He does what it takes, in cycling that means doping.

Unless you have a 95 VO2 max.

 

[thehog]

I think it's funny that Ashenden and Kimmage are now enemies of the Sky state.

Once they were champions of the cause. Part of the coalition of the willing for clean cycling.

But now they're just celebrity hunters looking to make a quick buck off the back of clean, honest cyclists.

This I agree with. A lot of “fans” just turn to support their team. It’s not worth taking it personally. Kimmage is a good man. Has respect.

 

[Cyivel]

I often agree with myself as well, brother Hog.

 

[thehog]

I often agree with myself as well, brother Hog.

Brailsford going full ***:

Drawing parallels to Lance Armstrong's recent confession, Brailsford said of Leinders: "Hindsight is a brilliant thing, and what we've all learnt is pretty horrific. Had we known then what we know now [about Leinders], we wouldn't have touched the guy for sure.

"We went through what we thought was the right procedure - we interviewed the guy, we sat down with Steve (Peters, Sky's Psychiatrist) and it's well documented what we did. Had we have had hindsight we wouldn't have done it."

Hours before the UCI confirmed its intention to set up a Truth and Reconciliation commission in a bid to examine the sport's doping past, Brailsford said such a policy will only be successful if confessions are followed up in the correct way.

He said: "You've got to think about what's the outcome. Everybody telling the truth doesn't make things better - acting upon what you find and doing something tangible with that information so it doesn't happen in the future will only make it better. Everybody telling the truth which then sits in a pot isn't going to change anything.

"My personal opinion is if you get 25 guys to tell you how to rob a bank, and then 100 guys tell you how to rob a bank, the majority of what you learned on how to rob a bank would have come from the first 25. It's the law of diminishing returns.

"If you're trying to establish all the individuals involved, who then come clean and are forgiven, what have we learned? You talk about culture. How come so many people fell into his mindset? If you get an expert to look into this and why so many people fell into this culture and you make something tangible out of it to ensure it wouldn't happen again, for sure is worth it.

He added: "Truth on its own is only half the equation. You've got to decide what your outcome goal is. If it is to minimise the risk of doping in this sport then you know what information you may need. I'm not sure anybody's got the outcome worked out yet."

 

[the sceptic]

Could some of the sky fans translate that into normal language?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's well documented what we did

And in the spirit of transparency, we're not going to show you any documents. It was documented in our heads, not on paper or in emails.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Could some of the sky fans translate that into normal language?

I don't have skyspeak on translation.

But my inner chimp feels he is saying that they wouldn't have touched Leinders if they had known the truth.
However on a separate issue he later says there is no point finding out the truth because if you do, well what is good is that?

 

[Joachim]

He's not saying that at all.

He's saying in terms of the authorities learning about doping there is no difference in whether 25 or 100 people confess. The key is what is the outcome of this, what is done with the information. He's saying that he can't see how letting everybody off for confessing will bring about necessary change.

It's an appeal for an actual strategy, rather than a blind hope that just letting everybody wipe there retrospective slates clean will stop people doping in the future. He's not against it, just wants more thought put into it.

It seems a pretty sensible position to take.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He's not saying that at all.

He's saying in terms of the authorities learning about doping there is no difference in whether 25 or 100 people confess. The key is what is the outcome of this, what is done with the information. He's saying that he can't see how letting everybody off for confessing will bring about necessary change.

It's an appeal for an actual strategy, rather than a blind hope that just letting everybody wipe there retrospective slates clean will stop people doping in the future. He's not against it, just wants more thought put into it.

It seems a pretty sensible position to take.

Ya, very sensible - break Omerta by only interviewing the first 25 people

 

[Joachim]

That isn't what he is saying, but of course you can carry on misrepresenting it if you wish. Wouldn't expect anything different.

 

[xcleigh]

He's not saying that at all.

He's saying in terms of the authorities learning about doping there is no difference in whether 25 or 100 people confess. The key is what is the outcome of this, what is done with the information. He's saying that he can't see how letting everybody off for confessing will bring about necessary change.

It's an appeal for an actual strategy, rather than a blind hope that just letting everybody wipe there retrospective slates clean will stop people doping in the future. He's not against it, just wants more thought put into it.

It seems a pretty sensible position to take.

I think this all makes sense. As Brailsford says, you can interview all those involved but obviously as more people are interviewed a lot of the information is likely to start being replicated hence diminishing returns. You still interview as many as possible but it's what you do with all that information that is the most important part of the process. If all you have is information and don't know to what end it's going to be used what is the point? There's no end strategy to make a difference using all the information. They might as well get a priest in and do a confessional.

 

[xrayvision]

He's not saying that at all.

He's saying in terms of the authorities learning about doping there is no difference in whether 25 or 100 people confess. The key is what is the outcome of this, what is done with the information. He's saying that he can't see how letting everybody off for confessing will bring about necessary change.

It's an appeal for an actual strategy, rather than a blind hope that just letting everybody wipe there retrospective slates clean will stop people doping in the future. He's not against it, just wants more thought put into it.

It seems a pretty sensible position to take.

If 500 people tells you how to rob a bank hence 25, you dont think you get a bit more information, details, insight, knowledge and options to work with?
His argument is pathetic.

 

[bianchigirl]

What is brailsford afraid of?