Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Racing
Sir Jim Ratcliffe says Ineos would end cycling team backing over dopingTeam Ineos launch (picture credit SWPix.com (34)

Sir Jim Ratcliffe says Ineos would end cycling team backing over doping

Boss of petrochemicals group also rejects accusations of greenwashing
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, May 02, 2019 13:01
9

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has said that Ineos will withdraw its sponsorship of cycling should members of its team be caught cheating or taking drugs, and has also denied accusations that his company’s entry into the sport is tantamount to “greenwashing.”

Speaking yesterday as Team Sky officially became Team Ineos following the petrochemicals group’s takeover of Team Sky’s management company, Ratcliffe – Britain’s richest man – told BBC Sport: "We did our due diligence. I have absolutely no interest in cheating or drugs."

"The day that any of that enters our world we'll be exiting that world."

Team Sky have dominated the Tour de France in recent years, winning six of the past seven editions, but have also been under investigation following allegations of doping.

Therapeutic Use Exemptions issued to Sir Bradley Wiggins and the mystery over the contents of a Jiffy Bag delivered to former team doctor Richard Freeman saw a Commons select committee accuse the team of having crossed an ethical line, although UK Anti-doping concluded that it was unable to find evidence of doping.

Chris Froome was subsequently investigated for a potential anti-doping rule violation due to excessive levels of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol after winning the 2017 Vuelta but was cleared just days before last year’s Tour de France.

Ratcliffe told BBC Sport that he had discussed those cases with team principal, Sir Dave Brailsford, saying: "What's the point of winning a race if you cheat? There's no point in that really.

"Also, I believe that if you have the best athletes in the world and the best training regimes, there's no need for any of those enhancements."

The team’s new owner said he was confident that it – and cycling – are clean, insisting the sport “had turned a corner, it's the only reason we're there.

"We did all our homework and have got procedures and people we are comfortable with."

With protests against Ineos taking place at the Tour de Yorkshire, which started today, Ratcliffe also rejected claims by environmental campaigners that Ineos is engaging in greenwashing through its sponsorship.

However, Ratcliffe, whose company holds licences for fracking in Yorkshire, including at locations on the route of this year’s race, said: "It's got nothing to do with it at all.

"We have one half of our business where we have to deal with those issues – you're talking about plastic waste and fracking – we do have to deal with those things, but the sport thing is totally different."

Team Ineos
Jim Ratcliffe
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

The British Empire gained on hell of a lot of benefit and money from the slave trade and slavery itself.  So obviously couldn't ever do anything about stopping it, let alone banning it or outlawing it could they?

Rich, powerful men were the only ones with the vote, so even thinking about giving it to poorer men or even women would be preposterous wouldn't it, as they had been benefiting from this for so long?

Living in a rich nation in the early 21st century and gaining all of the benefits it gives me does not mean that I cannot care or even dare to consider protesting to attempt to make the world a better place.

The ridiculous strawmen arguments made insult the intelligence of those making them.

 

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
2 likes

I think the Chinese and the developing world are more of an environmental problem than us. We are lecturing the wrong people. I guess since we all buy cheap things from China we'll all forget about that though...

Avatar
Simon E replied to Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
3 likes

Rick_Rude wrote:

I think the Chinese and the developing world are more of an environmental problem than us. We are lecturing the wrong people. I guess since we all buy cheap things from China we'll all forget about that though...

You're kidding, aren't you? The problem is created entirely by our consumer lifestyle - driving, flying and endless buying.

The brands pay companies to build the stuff we want in China, Bangladesh etc because labour is so incredibly cheap and environmental controls often poor or non-existent. Remember the Apple-Foxconn scandal?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-fo...

And instead of recycling we're simply exporting our rubbish to countries that will take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/30/worse-than-plastic...

The Chinese government is now refusing to take our waste.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/national-sword/

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like

Simon E wrote:

The problem is created entirely by our consumer lifestyle - driving, flying and endless buying.

Finally, some sense on the situation, couldn't agree more.

I assume that anyone complaining about Ineos doesn't use anything that has been imported, or drive a car, or ever go on a plane, or use electricity...

We are all part of the demand, we are the problem - Ineos just give consumers what they demand.

The consumers (us - you and I ) are responsible for the damage.

 

Avatar
Simon E replied to Canyon48 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Canyon48 wrote:

I assume that anyone complaining about Ineos doesn't use anything that has been imported, or drive a car, or ever go on a plane, or use electricity...

As I responded to the same sentiment in another discussion yesterday, IMO that's the wrong way to look at it. Polarising the debate achieves nothing.

Do I have to live off-grid, wash my home-sewn clothes in a stream and walk to work - where I use a pencil and recycled paper - before I can disagree with government policy on energy use or with clothing brands using sweatshops?

How do I singlehandedly convince my colleagues to cycle to work (or anywhere else) on roads they consider far too dangerous? One chap used to cycle to the office but gave up after witnessing a high-speed crash which came close to killing him.

Why are the alternatives to driving so poor by comparison? Train and bus fares have soared yet private car use gets cheaper (source). Why is my council cutting bus services while spending millions of taxpayers' money on consultants and building big roads? It's part of a national strategy to keep building more and more roads (and keep us buying cars). Big roads. Fast roads. £9bn for cars and £60bn for roads in last October's budget, fuel duty frozen since 2011. It's fucking insane!

Canyon48 wrote:

The consumers (us - you and I ) are responsible for the damage.

We are, BUT... bear in mind that we have been conditioned/brainwashed by powerful media run by and for the rich and don't feel we have a great deal of choice. This might partly explain why:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/who-is-we-causing-climate-change.html

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
0 likes

Simon E wrote:

Canyon48 wrote:

I assume that anyone complaining about Ineos doesn't use anything that has been imported, or drive a car, or ever go on a plane, or use electricity...

As I responded to the same sentiment in another discussion yesterday, IMO that's the wrong way to look at it. Polarising the debate achieves nothing.

Do I have to live off-grid, wash my home-sewn clothes in a stream and walk to work - where I use a pencil and recycled paper - before I can disagree with government policy on energy use or with clothing brands using sweatshops?

How do I singlehandedly convince my colleagues to cycle to work (or anywhere else) on roads they consider far too dangerous? One chap used to cycle to the office but gave up after witnessing a high-speed crash which came close to killing him.

Why are the alternatives to driving so poor by comparison? Train and bus fares have soared yet private car use gets cheaper (source). Why is my council cutting bus services while spending millions of taxpayers' money on consultants and building big roads? It's part of a national strategy to keep building more and more roads (and keep us buying cars). Big roads. Fast roads. £9bn for cars and £60bn for roads in last October's budget, fuel duty frozen since 2011. It's fucking insane!

Canyon48 wrote:

The consumers (us - you and I ) are responsible for the damage.

We are, BUT... bear in mind that we have been conditioned/brainwashed by powerful media run by and for the rich and don't feel we have a great deal of choice. This might partly explain why:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/who-is-we-causing-climate-change.html

Very true, we are in a situation where we (the individual) can't make any significant impact on climate as it's governments and large companies doing almost all the polluting.

Avatar
Welsh boy replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like

Simon E wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I think the Chinese and the developing world are more of an environmental problem than us. We are lecturing the wrong people. I guess since we all buy cheap things from China we'll all forget about that though...

You're kidding, aren't you? The problem is created entirely by our consumer lifestyle - driving, flying and endless buying.

The brands pay companies to build the stuff we want in China, Bangladesh etc because labour is so incredibly cheap and environmental controls often poor or non-existent. Remember the Apple-Foxconn scandal?

I dont think Rick is kidding, a large part of the problem is countires like China producing cheap products with little regard to environmental issues, health and safety and workers' welfare that allows us to continue buying cheap things.  If things were manufactured more responsibly and cost more maybe we would look after things, get them repaired and keep them rather than replace them adding to the cheap production/landfill/environmental damage cycle.

Back on topic, I am glad to see that the bigest investment in the sport we all love has said that he will pull the plug if the team are caught cheating.  I have argued for years that sponsors could end the doping cycle if more took that stance.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 5 years ago
6 likes

He's against cheating in sport but all in favour of a referendum result obtained through fraudulent overspending, misuse of personal data, and industrial-scale lying? Not surprising given his company uses anti-protesting legislation to suppress dissent about its fracking operations, but avoids taxes and has a questionable record with regard to safety and environmental regulations.

Avatar
Simon E replied to handlebarcam | 5 years ago
4 likes

handlebarcam wrote:

He's against cheating in sport but all in favour of a referendum result obtained through fraudulent overspending, misuse of personal data, and industrial-scale lying? Not surprising given his company uses anti-protesting legislation to suppress dissent about its fracking operations, but avoids taxes and has a questionable record with regard to safety and environmental regulations.

He didn't say he was against cheating. The article states he would pull out:

"should members of its team be caught cheating or taking drugs" [my emphasis]

It's reported the same way on BBC, Cycling News and other websites.

I agree with your comments. The Guardian quotes him saying "it’s outrageous the government listens to a small noisy minority instead of looking at the science".

He's trying to silence dissent, just like all the wealthy landowners have done down the generations. The vast majority of scientists are with the 'noisy minority' so Ratcliffe can f..k off to his tax haven with his sportswashing and blatant lies. I hope the sea level rise drowns his mansion.

The government's own independent committee, the Committee on Climate Change, today says we must act now but the oil billionaire and his spectacularly wealthy friends think they know better.

Latest Comments