Right to be cynical about Sky

Leodis wrote:

Haters will hate.

The report also says massive amounts of mamils are doping as well.

If have a few bevvies in the boozer is that doping ?

ianrobo wrote:

Thing is with this if this was happened at say Astana or another foreign team would people still be putting up the same defence ?

If that team had tried to take an explicit stance against doping such as Sky, and had been as open with the relevant authorities with their data and testing regimes then yes - I think most would, or should.

Sky have made mistakes, they've even admitted some of them, but they also seem to be one of the teams that are at least trying to do something decent. Their racing may be have been dull as dish-water for long periods of time but I have quite a bit of time for their regulatory behaviour. Brailsford seems to rub some folk up the wrong way but that in itself doesn't make them guilty of anything.

ianrobo wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Brailsford seems to rub some folk up the wrong way but that in itself doesn't make them guilty of anything.

apart from hypocrisy maybe, they set themselves up like this rather do what Garmin did and admit there was a problem and employ only those who are repentant, like Miller and Vaughters.

Dekker wasn't exactly repentant really, and Rasmussen? He just carried on while he was at Garmin.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

I just don't get the witch hunt. Young cyclist trying to make it big are told to dope or otherwise in the 1990s. Are held to account by a newshack some twenty years ago.

Maybe the Mail should look into football/ snooker and recreational drug us/ drinking that happened in the 60's and later. I'm sure there's a few skeletons. Hell why should they kill that golden goose? Instead they go and try to destroy another sport they don't cover.

oh it is very simple, look druggies over there. Suits the footballers, the rugby players, track and field etc. They get to carry on with the doping whilst the media gets their stories. How would it look if Beckham was outed as abusing steroids, or blood doping? Only have to wonder why Italy and Spain have been so reticent to go after footballers when plenty of evidence exists in both cases.

crikey wrote:

Meh.
I can't find the enthusiasm for yet another doping story; it's cycling, there are dopers...

It's not just cycling, it's all sport. These guys and galls have 15 years or so at the top of their profession to make as much money as possible, hopefully to see them through a long retirement or whilst training at the age or 35 for a second career. All sportspeople are driven, motivated individuals looking to maximise their earnings and fame. Of course some (most?) will look for an edge over their rivals to try and better themselves. Such is life.

Welsh boy wrote:

crikey wrote:

Meh.
I can't find the enthusiasm for yet another doping story; it's cycling, there are dopers...

It's not just cycling, it's all sport. These guys and galls have 15 years or so at the top of their profession to make as much money as possible, hopefully to see them through a long retirement or whilst training at the age or 35 for a second career. All sportspeople are driven, motivated individuals looking to maximise their earnings and fame. Of course some (most?) will look for an edge over their rivals to try and better themselves. Such is life.

If you look at how few teams there are and basically how crap the pay is, riders will do whatever they think they can get away with that gets them a place. Short term contracts, teams in a constant state of flux, not exactly helpful to the situation.

I would state every rider is on something, IMO the majority are within the rules, they may push to the limit, i.e. asthma, tramadol, etc. a few may go over the limit, EPO, blood doping. I would also say things are better than they were, as for whether dopers should be allowed in the sport, as most current DS's were riding through the worst of times banning every implicated DS would leave no one. Does it matter, IMO not really, it depends on the DS's attitude to drugs, someone who denies and evades, or someone who admits they f***ed up. The knowledge of how to race is far more than simply knowing how to mix pot belge.

crikey wrote:

I don't read the Mail; see above.
With a name like Servais Knaven, he's obviously an untrustworthy foreign type and is probably implicated in the death of Princess Di too.

I think you are confusing your right wing comics/ chip wrappers. It is the Express that is fixated on Di.

Gkam84 wrote:

Sky needs to go through an Astana style audit by the UCI, THEN and only then should they be given any trust, at the moment. I wouldn't trust them at all with their closed doors policy

This may be the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've seen you write.
At no point have Sky ever been accused of any doping - not beyond the tin-foil hatted twitterati - there's been no positive tests, no suspicion of covered up positive tests, and no evidence of any doping. The closest we get is their top riders performing close to an arbitrary limit of human ability, which is either evidence of top athletes at the top of their game, or average athletes taking a load of banned substances. Seeing as Sky are one of the very top teams and have a roster of supremely talented athletes, which is most likely?
Astana had several athletes busted for doping, and worked with banned doctor Michele Ferrari, and their manager is completely unrepentant and corrupt Alex Vino.
Sky hired a few people who may or may not have doped back in the days when every fucker was doping. I repeat, it's almost impossible to find a suitable DS who has no link to some sort of doping in the past 20 years.
So you see how the two teams are different? Do you see how one team deserves a thorough investigation and going over, and one team doesn't?

bashthebox wrote:

Gkam84 wrote:

Sky needs to go through an Astana style audit by the UCI, THEN and only then should they be given any trust, at the moment. I wouldn't trust them at all with their closed doors policy

This may be the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I've seen you write.
At no point have Sky ever been accused of any doping - not beyond the tin-foil hatted twitterati - there's been no positive tests, no suspicion of covered up positive tests, and no evidence of any doping. The closest we get is their top riders performing close to an arbitrary limit of human ability, which is either evidence of top athletes at the top of their game, or average athletes taking a load of banned substances. Seeing as Sky are one of the very top teams and have a roster of supremely talented athletes, which is most likely?
Astana had several athletes busted for doping, and worked with banned doctor Michele Ferrari, and their manager is completely unrepentant and corrupt Alex Vino.
Sky hired a few people who may or may not have doped back in the days when every fucker was doping. I repeat, it's almost impossible to find a suitable DS who has no link to some sort of doping in the past 20 years.
So you see how the two teams are different? Do you see how one team deserves a thorough investigation and going over, and one team doesn't?

Jesus.....Sky fan...MUCH.

I think every team should go through the audit, not just Sky, I never said they were the same as Astana either.

All world tour teams should go through an audit every year. Weed out the arseholes that are continually bring the sport down

Gkam84 wrote:

Jesus.....Sky fan...MUCH.

I think every team should go through the audit, not just Sky, I never said they were the same as Astana either.

All world tour teams should go through an audit every year. Weed out the arseholes that are continually bring the sport down

Yeah I'll admit to being a Sky fan, as much for the reason that they have tried hard to clean up cycling, whilst increasing performance by doing a whole raft of rather revolutionary things.
You didn't make it clear you wanted an audit of all teams - you very specifically mentioned Sky - so I'll stand by my assertion that your previous comment was daft.
As for a yearly audit - how would you propose that works? A full team audit would most likely need to be scheduled; anything else would disrupt training or race programs. A scheduled audit would make it rather easy for teams to avoid suspicion. We've already got in and out of competition testing and biological passports - which clearly work to an extent. Beyond that, we must acknowledge that dirty cheats will always exist. The rewards for getting to the top are huge, and some people in sport, as in life (look at the banks, ffs) will do anything they can to get to the top. Doping is impossible to eradicate entirely, but the governing bodies are getting better at it, in cycling probably more than in any other sport.