Franklin said:
Martin, I love what you said here, so my post will turn you into a critic just like that. I'll show you some facts and measured analysis.
Let's start this conversation with the clear statement that I have no idea is Sky dope. None. Nada. I don't hold them up as a clean team. I don't hold them up as a dirty team. What we know can be boiled down to a few points.
1. Sky have never had a positive test, to my knowledge. The BC track team which is seperate but related, and have been around much much longer, have been relatively tarnish free since the Peter Keen era with the single notable red flag of Rob Hayles 50% Haemo withdrawl from the Worlds. How that was resolved remains controversial, but there was no ban, or finding of doping.
Sky have never been the subject of a specific first hand allegation from a former rider or staff member, or as far as I know, rival. Everyone who has left the team has been at pains to defend its cleanliness.
There have of course been British dopers caught in cycling, though none, it appears, as part of the 'central' programme.
2. Sky hired a doctor for their team, Leinders, apparently on the recommendation of one of their own 'coaches' (de Jongh), who it is now all but clear was heavily involved at doping on the Radobank team - doping it appears second only to USPostal at this stage in terms of team organisation. There is enough first hand testimony to consider that to be proven to at very least the civil standard, or even the libel standard.
In addition they had a number of coaches who have left/had to leave in the wake of an invesitgation into Leinders, coupled with the continued fall-out from the Arsmtrong case. De Jongh is one of these coaches, and has admitted parts of his own past. His departure did not mention whether he had been held responsible for the hiring of Leinders.
Of the coaches that left, several had interesting reputations. the one with the worst 'rep' ironically did not make an admission; Sean Yates.
3. One sky rider, Michael Barry, has confessed to previous doping, and has retired from the sport. Another, Michael Rogers, is very widely believed to have been implicated in doping, has left the team under vague circumstances, and went to SaxoBank.
4. Sky, despite an early suggestion that their team would, if possible, build around sprint phenomenom Mark Cavendish, a graduate of the track team, decided in the end to build around Bradley Wiggins, long time track mainstay, and who had just achieved a notable and unexpected success in the 2009 tour de France, finishing 4th (later upgraded to 3rd). this was in line with the broader mission statement to create a clean, British TdF winner within 5 years. His cleanliness cannot be proven, but the Australian fathered, Beglian born englishman certainly rides ona British passport, and has won the Tour.
5. Sky is enormously well funded in relative terms.
6. Sky's record, after a very ropey first year has been exceptional in GrandTours, 1 and 2 in a TdF, 2, 3 and 4 in two Vuelta. British cycling's feats have if anything been more impressive. all of the above, plus the 2009 'podium' for Wiggins, and the continuing success, including a green jersey and a world title for Cavendish.
So let's leave back story there for starters, and move on to the meat, Franklin.
1. DB is a very smart guy who was there when David Millar was Arrested due to conspiracy with his own doctor.
Millar was arrested for doping offences. The role his doctor played was of no immediate relevance to that. I entirely accept the level of medical involvement was made clear subsequently, but then the point is, Brailsford was there for the arrest, not necessarily the subsequent stuff. He wasn't part of the team, had nothing to do with the team beyond 'sharing' a rider with GB.
Trying to tie Brailsford to a doping scandal that was, by all accounts, nothing to do with him, come perilously close to an ad hominem by proxy.
Brailsford also would not have needed to be 'present' to be aware of what subsequently became known. Let's remember it was some considerable time after the arrest before Millar spilled most of the story. Brailsfords presence at the time of the arrest is interesting backstory, and conspiracy fodder, but as an issue of factual evidence, it's not even circumstancial, it's perfectly explicable happenstance. Sorry.
2. DB needed a doctor and then decided to hire a doctor who already had a damning court order against him. This doctor was involved in one fo the biggest scandals in cyling just two years prior. He was also known to be rather successful and work with dirty riders.
No-one can argue but that the hire was a PR disaster, and a catastrophic mistake. Even if Sky ARE doping, it was incredibly foolish to bring in such obvious tainted goods into the 'team'. Sky seem to have relied on the word of De Jongh
. Whether part of the reason for his departure was connected to that is unknown, but his admission of doping would have created full cause to terminate in any event.<ref>. Brailsford reports that he was willing to resign on the issue if the Board had so asked. How true, or realistic, that is is matter for pure speculation.
3. Dave Brailsford now claims he was not really involved in the hiring of said doctor and that his organization had no idea who Leinders was.
Do you really believe Dave does not do a background check on a person who watches his biggest assets? This is Dave Brailsford who with his own eyes saw what these doctors do.
See above.
Fact and reason indicate that DB is absolutely lieing here.
As I think I've shown above, it really doesn't. This goes back to my 'religious faith' argument. If you believe as a matter of basic faith in their malfeasance, their every utterance becomes a lie. And vice versa. But on pure facts, it's thin gruel. Certainly worthy of investigation, certainly worth question. But no more than that, sorry.
Another set of facts and analysis.
1. TdF winners have invariably been dopers ever since 1990. In fact generally speaking every one who hit top ten has some dirt on him.
The situation between Lemond's last win and 2007 is indisputable, on top of which I would add the intervening wins of Roche and Delgado.
The win of Carlos sastre however raises interesting issues, and the general decline in the performance of the peleton rasies issues. Sastre's reputation has not suffered anything like the problems of the previous winners. 2008 appears, i repeat appears, to have been one of the cleaner tours.
I also think the relative fates in the mid to late naughties of Rasmussen, Landis and Contador, all of whom lost tours, or leads, over offences, is a little instructive. something was happening to allow this, that never happened in either the indurain or the armstrong era. The subsequent wins of Evans and Wiggins, therefore, are somewhat more complex than your statement allows. Indeed, in a literalist sense, its simply not true.
2. In 2012 a lot of these doping riders were still in the peloton, but they were destroyed by one clean team, Sky.
The 2012 tour in particular was a relatively weak field. Contador and Schleck A (arguably the two dominat GC contenders of recent years up to that point)were missing. Evans, Schleck Sr and Menchov, for example may as well have been. Basso had returned, but was clearly not his 'former' self; he was basically a nibili superdom. Set against this was a team in sky drilled ferociously in one specific tactic, with riders who were on proven form.
Or to put it another way; without Sky the winner is Nibili. Once Cadel cracked, Was there anyone in the tour likely to beat him, sky train or no? And indeed, without Froome, was there any likeihood that Wiggins, isolated, could have lived with Nibali?
The 'cool' thing to do is to dismiss these issues as 'apologies', I understand that; but that's a deflection. Sky were amazingly, and frankly for my entertainment, appallingly, dominant - but they were dominant over as mediocre a field as the tour has seen in years. And despite this dominance, it remains the teams ONLY GT. It came apart in 2011 TdF when wiggins went down. It didn't work against Cobo. It failed pretty badly in Vuelta 2012.
If the Saxo Pais Vasco team are anything to go by, it won't be repeated this year.
I could go on and show how analysis of the races themselves raise flags.
Please do. i would welcome that as a stap towards considering objective data and evidence.
I could go on and point out the ties between Sky's management with the dirtiest team in history. I could go on and point out the problems with the strange Tenerife story.
Pointing out what is strange about it for discussion would be useful start.
All circumstantial. But it's a lot.
A lot of this isn't even
circumstantial.
Now the real thing is... we can't do a similar thing in their advantage. There is nothing besides blind faith that shows they are probably clean.
Back to proving a negative. Franklin. It's a inherently flawed test. It doesn't survive scrutiny.
You clearly prefer facts and analysis
Glad you noticed
, so I'm glad to show that you are rooting for the wrong side.
Oh dear, and it was going so well, too.
It would help if you didn't get basic things like my allegiances wrong...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram