Michael Rogers quits Team Sky for Alberto Contador's Saxobank-Tinkoff

stumps wrote:

daddyELVIS - you seem to be a bit cynical if you ask me, Sky can only do so much themselves and as of now the TdF team have not had anyone fail a drugs test.

The LA report has basically made a lot of teams sit up and think about what they do and how they come across so with Sky setting out a zero tolerance approach it should be applauded and not put down.

So they got rid of certain riders and coaches for PAST links, it does not mean they were dirty during this years tour.

Your entitled to your opinion and i respect that but it does seem a bit cynical.

Not cycnical - just stating facts that when Team Sky was formed Brailsford stated this new team would be totally anti-doping and that they would not only produce a British winner of the Tour, but also a clean winner. He even stated that his team doctors would be recruited from outside cycling to ensure that fans could have faith that all his staff would have no past links to doping - also stating that although he admired David Millar, there's no way he could employ him at Sky due to his past. Then Team Sky win the Tour with a British rider - so that's one promise fulfilled. But there is absolutely no way we can have faith that it was done clean when it turns out they never had any real intention of sticking by their promise of employing staff with no prior link to doping(by clean I mean by riders who have not used, during the race or in preparation for the race, performance enhancing substances that are either banned now, or will be banned in the future when testing science catches up with doping science). The Armstrong report is published - what happens next? - Team Sky suddenly decide to enforce a promise they made over 2 years ago!

Kimmage , who has recently been hailed a hero over the Armstrong affair, states:
"Two years ago I phoned Brailsford and told him the team needs to tell Barry to speak honestly about the past, to say that there will be no repercussions if he tells the truth, but I don’t think anything was done. There was also hemming and hawing about hiring [Neil] Stephens as a directeur sportif. All of the core principles that the team was founded on, they found ways to wriggle out of it and do something else."

Kimmage was also critical of the appointment of the Yates appointment. Then when Yates suddenly 'retired', Team Sky said it was nothing to do with their sudden enforcement of their 2 year old promise - who are they trying to kid?

On Wiggins' rant, during the Tour, about remarks on Twitter suggesting that he might be doping, Kimmage states this:
"I’m troubled by Wiggins’ change in attitude. He rants about these Tweeters, the people on Twitter. In fact, I was the subject from abuse from him on Twitter. In the race he finished fourth in, he wrote ‘where is Paul Kimmage, missed his cheery little face on the Tour this year.’ That was the 2009 Tour, when Armstrong had come back. I had to leave the race as all of the pieces I had written on Armstrong had been rejected by the newspaper [the Sunday Times]. That is why I wasn’t on the race – I had left the race early. My reward for this was that snarky little remark from Wiggins. He has been a huge disappointment."

Call me cynical if you like - I'd suggest its more a case of realising that Brailsford and Team Sky have not lived up to their promises (not both of them anyway!)

NeilXDavis wrote:

All teams will naturally push the envelope of whats legal..same in all sports. I stand by Sky 100% and anyone who really wants to see the sport cleaned up should think the same - Sky are a genuine sponsor not a rich benefactor and as such their reputation is on the line. Good on them.

so using EPO before it was officially a banned substance would have been ok? That's what I'm saying - who knows what the next big performance enhancer will be, but you can bet there's something out there that's not yet banned that riders are using. I'm not saying that Sky riders are, but the team seems to be more about appearances rather than substance when it comes to their zero tollerence claims. They won the Tour with various members of staff with past links to doping, and until recently a doctor linked to Rabbobank when Rasmussen was doped to his scrawny eyeballs. Then when the Armstrong report was published they suddenly went on a big PR exercise. Too late in my book to claim that they achieved their aim of winning the Tour with a clean rider. I'm not saying Wiggo was not clean, but Sky cannot claim that they did everything to ensure that whole Tour de France team was clean when shortly afterwards they start sacking staff for past links to doping.

I'm not sure how much Sky's management team have to do with encouraging the recent culls - the anti-doping at all costs must be written into the contract with the sponsors - because Brailsford and co knew what they were getting into when they entered the sport. Reckon the recent Armstrong saga must have freaked out the money men enough into completely sweeping the boards. I'm sure Brailsford is seething behind the scenes. But i agree, doesn't set a good example, and there's still no news on them signing up to MPCC.

edhonrada wrote:

I'm not sure how much Sky's management team have to do with encouraging the recent culls - the anti-doping at all costs must be written into the contract with the sponsors - because Brailsford and co knew what they were getting into when they entered the sport. Reckon the recent Armstrong saga must have freaked out the money men enough into completely sweeping the boards. I'm sure Brailsford is seething behind the scenes. But i agree, doesn't set a good example, and there's still no news on them signing up to MPCC.

Not signing up to MPCC puts them in line with 4/5ths of the ProTour teams then. I have my doubts about MPCC. There is no policing that teams are complying with what they sign up to in the way of policies - Jonathan Vaughters has admitted this. Vaughters himself has totally flouted the MPCC policy about the minimum time in signing up a rider post-sanction, by bringing in Thomas Dekker just a few months after the end of his ban. And MPCC have granted provisional membership to Lampre for goodness sake - exactly what does that do for its credibility?