- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Are cracks appearing in the Walsh / Sky love affair?
Walsh has been very quiet since puffer-gate and the subsequent revelations about Froome's TUE at the TdR - but today, in an article for the Sunday Times, he broke his silence.
I've only seen quotes from the article on the CN website, but the following is quite telling:
"What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition? Farrell says he was unaware this ethical position existed within the team. Froome says he never heard of it. But Peters has said it did exist at one point and the team are in only their fifth year," Walsh writes. "As in the case of the appointment of (former Rabobank doctor) Leinders, Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk."
Finally, from Walsh's own mouth - Sky talk the talk, but do not walk the walk!
I'm sure Walsh hasn't delved too far below the surface in this article, but it's a start!
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Fursty Ferret 4 min 33 sec ago
I'd like to think that in addition to the very well exposed supply chain argument made by Patrick, the simply outrageous price of Shimano...
- lesterama 5 min 10 sec ago
That bike with clearance for 33c, tracklocross style, could be a winner.
- chrisonabike 12 sec ago
Hellish! Barely used, clearly dangerous, slowing competent cyclists down while pandering to the clueless, a serious threat to pedestrians, won't...
- David9694 27 min 20 sec ago
"I ran into the back of him because I was traumatised by seeing the latest petrol prices, m'lud"
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 8 min ago
Are you sure? Norway is socialist and has a very high quality of life.
- ErnieC 3 hours 31 min ago
Glad I got mine before that change in ownership.
- quadtodd 8 hours 58 min ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 9 hours 29 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 9 hours 45 min ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 10 hours 9 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
Add new comment
88 comments
I'll do this once more then i'm off - i'm rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon... they seem to be talking about the decisions going through a committee. At the moment the UCI regs say there should be a committee, and when a request for a TUE comes through, that committee chooses one or more people from that committee - with or without expert help from outside - to make the actual decision. The mention of 'requests' going through the/a committee was made by the author in an apparent mis-quote of the UCI statement.
Agreed it's wishy washy and unclear whether there was actually a committee although - like farrell - I personally find it slightly more believable that there was one, e.g. a standing committee that basically shovelled everything through to the MD.. but that's guesswork. As is most of the stuff about this unfortunately. The UCI may be a bunch of senseless, inbred, bribe-taking morons but frankly nothing about this particular decision i've seen seems to indicate it's some sort of deep, dark plot. YMMV.
A committee cannot just pick and choose who makes a decision though. I MUST be made by at least 3 members and if WADA had their way, it would require every decision to be made by a 6 person committee, 1 chairman and 5 members.
So Froomes TUE was illegal and wrong, his results should be stripped as his TUE was against the WADA code and therefore he was using a banned substance without the proper authority.....
BTW, has anyone seen Michelle Cound's twitter feed today? - her account has since been closed!
She has publically called out the UCI, WADA, and Cookson, seemingly more for failing to protect rider confidentiality than anything else!
Froome & Sky must be fuming at her rant, and (if Sky / Froome have something more to hide) they will be crapping themselves now!
Await Sky PR claiming crazy Contador fan hacked her account - haha!
Contador must be having a little chuckle as Sky start to feel the heat!
Cycling - the only soap opera worth following - how long until Miss Cound is back though? Miss her already
No. Read the regs, that is precisely what they can do. The committee must have at least 3 members. Read sections 40-45 of the UCI anti-doping regs, particularly 45.
(amended post) Here
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTY2NjU&ObjTypeCo...
(end amendment)
..follows only if your reading of the UCI regs is correct.
WADA signed off on it - then questioned the procedure (probably rightly) and it's being amended. None of the necessitates the illegality of the TUE.
You still don't get it. THEY CANNOT just hand it off to one person....they are responsible to WADA and the code says they HAVE to decide it by committee.....a committee cannot hand it to one person either.
I don't care what you come back with that the UCI reg's say they can and cannot do. UCI are members of the WADA code and therefore WADA rules and reg's apply, not UCI sub codes they have put in place themselves. That is not how it works.
WADA code has to be followed to the letter.
Let's await the next Sky story, because there WILL be one!
The answer, my friend, is pissing in the wind, to paraphrase Mr Zimmerman. And don't forget, Gkam has done "the course". BOOOOM.
I personally can't shift the image of Maureen Lipman giving it the old "Oooh, he's got an 'Ology...." routine but then that's just the way my mind works.
Although, more seriously, if the UCI's approach to anti-doping and all the procedures the UCI have in place are actually a load of bollocks, then what does that make the UCI's anti-doping course?
For the rider, the UCI regs apply because a rider who is a member of the UCI Registered Testing Pool must have a UCI TUE regardless of any other exemptions from any other Anti-Doping Agency. From the WADA Code Section 4.4 Therapeutic Use
(my emphasis). However, further in that section
So the TUE for Froome (who is a member of the UCI RTP) can only come from the UCI and must be issued in line with the UCI rules. That those regulations may be scrutinised by WADA for compliance is another matter which does not mean the immediate nulling of the TUE. That can happen as WADA "through its TUE Committee (TUEC), has the right to monitor and review any TUE granted by a federation or anti-doping organization and, pursuant to such review, to reverse any decision." (WADA ISTUE). That has not happened, and the only murmurs heard regarding WADA are that there is no problem with this grant on the medical side (last four words added for clarity).
Further, in the ISTUE WADA state
This is inline with the UCI regulations, as the TUE request should be dealt with initially by the UCI TEUC. From there on, the actual decision about an individual case is made by one or more of members of the UCI TEUC. WADA says nothing about this, one way or another, so it may be that the UCI are complying with the letter of the Code but not the spirit (perhaps that is what was meant by WADA having concerns about the UCI protocol, who knows).
The entirety of the WADA Code related to non-WADA TUECs is below
...and please note from the earlier WADA directive in the Code that the TUEC is only required for the review of the TUE and not the decision.
Gkam - i'm totally in agreement that the idea that a single person is apparently in charge of the TUEs in the UCI is ridiculous and that, at best, the UCI is probably not complying with the spirit of the Code. I hope that is what is being addressed in the new UCI regs and the 2015 Code update. However, reading through the letter of the law (UCI regulations, WADA Code and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions) it seems
Or whatever.
Fukawitribe, it's simple:
1) UCI have been found out not following WADA code
2) UCI still have Zorzoli at the anti-doping helm, FFS
3) On Cookson's watch - the who promised integrity, honesty, transparency and to clean up the sport
4) Sky have been found out as bull-sh!tters
5) Sky do not operate to the same high ethical standards as many other teams, despite the BS PR they spout
6) Froome used a drug during the course of a stage race ( which he won) that is abused for PE reasons in many pro sports, including cycling
7) Most other teams (MPCC members) would not let their riders compete whilst on that drug
8) conclusion - nothing much has changed at the UCI and Sky are not the cleanest team!
Someone is WRONG on the internet!
Oh yesh
(Alas I was that man last night)
Thanks for reminding me of xkcd, I've just been laughing at a few. Doc Brown on halloween is class!
So, there was never a policy of getting TUEs, but a reputable journalist (on the Cycling Podcast) has stated that Uran had one during the Dauphiné in 2011. You'd think that would be the sort of thing that would stick in the memory...
daddyElvis, oh how you make me giggle with your incessant digs at Sky which clearly show your viewing this with very tainted and very lopsided glasses and to be honest everything you say gets taken with a pinch of salt because in your world 2+2 = 10 when it comes to Sky.
Roll on the TdF when Froome will win again and Sky will prevail. I would love to be a fly on the wall in your house when it happens.
You feel the need to comment but with nothing constructive to counter what I've said - probably because I've stated the truth. I don't expect you to accept that as your rose-tinted specs are more lopsided than mine!
If you're right about Froome at this year's TdF, and if Contador goes the distance, then I'll most probably enjoy the spectacle of Froome and Brailsford getting more and more agitated in the press conferences, as they try to explain super-human performances with mattresses, pineapple juice, and Nutella bans
Sorry, please enlighten me on this one?
Astana have a certain Alexandre Vinokourov as their Manager who you may well remember as having several doping convictions and accusations of paying off rivals. A quick look through the Astana team roster reveals several other riders who have at various times been suspended or banned for doping.
Cannondale have Ivan Basso who although never admitting actually doping did admit to planning to dope and was linked to Operacion Puerto and served a 2-year ban.
Garmin Sharp I'll let off as although it's got a fair few former dopers at least they've all admitted it and now campaign for clean sport - I've got a lot of time and respect for David Millar and Jonathan Vaughters.
Team Tinkoff-Saxo have former doper Bjarne Riis at the helm and convicted doper Alberto Contador still riding.
Trek Factory Racing have Frank Schleck who served a 1-year ban for testing positive for xipamide (a masking agent) and he too was linked to Operacion Puerto.
That's just a quick glance through the team rosters.
I mean, the list goes on and on - most of the teams still to this day have former dopers involved in the management or actually riding. Some have admitted it, some continue to deny any involvement and protest their innocence.
And you're all up in arms about Sky employing one doctor for a few months or about an alleged misuse of a TUE? Christ, get over yourselves!
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/06/wada-says-uci-followed-rules-in-granti...
Nothing to see here, move along.
Juillich, Barry, Rogers, Yates.
All Sky and have admitted, or been heavily linked to doping (Ferrari Clients etc), in pre sky days.
Key words there being "in pre-Sky days".
Pretty much everyone was doping in pre-Sky days hence why it was so difficult for Sky to employ a known clean team.
They did the best they could using the available information as to who was clean - none of the people involved at the time the team was formed had ever been found guilty of any crime.
And when they admitted their past they were fired (or they retired then admitted it, end result is the same) unlike all the other teams where, as I said earlier, numerous riders and/or admin staff linked to doping in the past are still on the roster.
errr - every comment you've ever written about Sky is all just pie in the sky without fact or foundation and as i said is just 2+2 = 10. I get it you dont like Sky but there's no need to lie just to get your point over because all it does is make you look rather silly and your inability to include other pro teams in the arguement who, like other posters have stated, are still more heavily involved in drug users both past and present is quite sad.
True, but they employed people complicit to USPS/LA.
See above, but they didn't seem to look in backgrounds that much, it just seemed like they asked 'Ever doped?' got a 'No' and left it at that, I'm not entirley implying guilt by association, but if they were keen on a clean (as possible) team, you'd avoid guys linked to people who were dirty.
I'm not saying Sky are the only ones (many people do though) but when they came into the sport spouting the 'no dopers' 'clean team' lines, then they should have really done some home work and really erred on the side of caution, someone connected to USPS/Festina/Ferrai/Puerto and so on should have been an instant no.
DaddyElvis, GKam, Glynr - Do you think all British riders, from 1997 onwards, should be stripped of every medal they have won?
Ever heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"?
Besides which if you took the "guilt by association" to it's logical conclusion, you'd rule out the entire pro peloton. It'd be very easy to link pretty much any rider back to doping via some sort of association.
There are certain instances where you can deny someone a job due to "guilt by association" but by and large, it's illegal.
As true as that may be, some of the associations are 'stronger' than others, I guess the benfit now this is all said with hindsight with the out come of the USADA USPS investigation and so on. At the time, it would have been a lot harder to make these statements.
Curious to the significance of 1997 here.
It's when Dave Brailsford started coaching British Cycling.
If Sky do indeed have such a sophisticated doping programme and receiving special treatment from the UCI then Brailsford must be involved. It would be inconceivable that he isn't.
If Sky have the techniques to dope and disguise it, then British Cycling have them and have been using them too.
So, which truth is it you want?
I've not inferred that I think Sky are doping, all I've said way way back at the start of the thread was that I thought Sky were niave in the past to make the statements about having no one involved with doping (we've already established this is nigh on impossible), and then the one about the use of TUEs they made too.
Nor did I say I thought they got special treatment, just that the UCI hadn't followed the rules for the issue of a TUE.
I think their statements were actually around having none of their *riders* having had past links to doping - back office staff-wise I think we can all agree that's nigh on impossible.
Sorry, you're mistaken - they even went so far as to say they wouldn't even employ docs from cycling.
Why would I think that? I actually think you can cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday
Besides, I can't remember calling for any cyclist (past or present, track or road) to be stripped of any titles - why would I do that?
Read farrells reply to the questions about that. It seems to me he's merely taking the current situation and extrapolating back to get to one of a number of possible (though not necessarily correct) conclusions. If that conclusion was correct then, given your previous posts, presumably it should result in the medals being stripped.
It is not to say that conclusion is correct, or even probable - indeed that's probably part of the point - but seems inline with what you'd expect from a team so manipulative and with such evil intent as portrayed in the reasoning of a number of people on the intertubes.
Of course I might have that completely arse about face - in which case he'll hopefully correct me.
Pages