Right to be cynical about Sky

The main argument against Sky
The main argument against Sky doping like any other team is that Sky say they don’t. It’s pretty ridiculous. You have to ask the question if you can dope and get away with it why wouldn’t you? The answer to that question, as poled to Olympians, is virtually 100% said they would. Given what people know about cyclings winners in recent history you’d have to suspect that you can dope and get away with it ipso facto.

You can watch sport in the belief that everyone is doping. The hard part is the damage that they do to themselves, and to people who try to emulate them.

I don’t object to Sky keeping
I don’t object to Sky keeping Knaven in fact is one of more honourable things they have done. He probably doped but so did everyone and who cares.

What I do object to is sanctimonious comments of Brailsford , British media and the hordes of newbie UK cycling fans who assume Sky are whiter than white just because there British.

I don’t support doping but accept it goes on and will always be part of the sport so think penalties should be proportionate and based on actually getting caught at time not hearsay evidence years later .

On this basis though think Sky though not beyond suspicion and clearly sailing close to wind in some cases have to be given benefit of doubt as do Astana and the other big teams .

In all walks of life, whether
In all walks of life, whether thats sport or otherwise, you get people who will cheat and that has never been in doubt.

But to make the naive assumption that because it’s happened in other sports it must happen in all, and by every single competitor, is just plain stupid and very naive.

Now according to your favourite paper. The Mail, which obviously tells the whole truth about Sky hence your forum post states that in 2013 of 267,000 drugs tests conducted globally last year, 1.19 per cent had ‘adverse’ findings — or were positive — with a further 0.57 per cent ‘atypical’ and needing further investigation. Now correct me if i’m wrong but that somehow does not equate to everyone is cheating in pro sport

ianrobo wrote:With Porte and

ianrobo wrote:

With Porte and Thomas both winning we can safely say that Sky have had a fantastic Spring.

I have tried to google this to confirm this. Was it David Walsh in defence of them and any allegations that they could not be doping, said they could not be as were so poor in the Spring ?

So – aside from Skys extra focus on the classics for this year, changing their training for it and so on – given they have had more success this year what do you think that might prove or indicate ?

You’ve sort of left a hanging implication there and whilst logic dictates an answer to that question I have a funny feeling you’re thinking of an entirely different one.

Just getting back to the
Just getting back to the original story – which Team Sky took very seriously. SK was in a team where individuals were found to have doped and where staff were found with EPO. It is highly likely that SK doped in some way too, however unlike some of his colleagues (and other members of the peloton) this was not proved. As good as the MOS’s investigative journalism is, they have not proved it either.

Dave B has asked all staff and riders to sign a declaration. SK signed it and still maintains his innocence. Some could not and have moved on. Dave B therefore continues to run his team with SK on the basis of trust and cold, hard, fact.

Sky are right not to use ‘guilty by association’ as a method of trial and should be applauded for their stance, rather than criticized for being successful. Or maybe that success is the real problem with a lot of people here?