Sky - gaming the system?

[Hot Flatus]

From BBC website:

But questions remain:

Why has it taken so long for organisations that claim to be committed to transparency and accountability to get here?

The Daily Mail now reports that Brailsford tried to persuade them not to run the Jiffy bag story. Why go to such efforts when it merely contained a decongestant?

Will British Cycling or Team Sky now be able to provide a paper trail to back up the Fluimucil explanation?

Why was British Cycling president Bob Howden still unable to say what was in the jiffy bag months after the story broke, only for Brailsford to then reveal it?

Why were Brailsford's original explanations about the delivery not correct when all he had to do was ask former team medic Dr Richard Freeman?

Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?

Why did former coach Shane Sutton "authorise" the delivery of something, the details of which he claims not to be aware of?

 And why did Wiggins' long-term mentor not know what medication his star cyclist was taking?

And why was Wiggins taking a decongestant that apparently is not meant to be used by asthmatics (like him)?.

Doubtless Brailsford will answer all of these by saying "it was badly handled" and "we'll be transparent"(again)

[drgannet]

Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

[Hot Flatus]

Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

Riiiight. So everything in the Mail is a lie then. Because its the Mail.

That would include the original 'package' story then, wouldnt it, which was broken by the Mail on information from a Team Sky insider. Brailsford has admitted the story is true, after first failing in attempts to claim that the package was meant for a different rider in a different location (subsequently contradicted by the rider), and then claiming that Wiggins hadnt gone back to the Team bus where the substance was alledgedly administered.....until some pesky youtube footage turned up showing Wiggins had gone back to the bus.

The team insider claimed Wiggins had received an injection. This we know to be impossible because Wiggins said in his post tour win autobiography that hed never had an injection apart from holiday vaccinations. (Until Fancy Bears hack leaked that Wiggins had received injections of PED steroids before 3 major races). Whoops.

For the cleanest and most transparent team in pro cycling they seem to have a real problem with facts.

[Jakob]

Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

Riiiight. So everything in the Mail is a lie then. Because its the Mail.

That would include the original 'package' story then, wouldnt it, which was broken by the Mail on information from a Team Sky insider. Brailsford has admitted the story is true, after first failing in attempts to claim that the package was meant for a different rider in a different location (subsequently contradicted by the rider), and then claiming that Wiggins hadnt gone back to the Team bus where the substance was alledgedly administered.....until some pesky youtube footage turned up showing Wiggins had gone back to the bus.

The team insider claimed Wiggins had received an injection. This we know to be impossible because Wiggins said in his post tour win autobiography that hed never had an injection apart from holiday vaccinations. (Until Fancy Bears hack leaked that Wiggins had received injections of PED steroids before 3 major races). Whoops.

For the cleanest and most transparent team in pro cycling they seem to have a real problem with facts.

I saw that story on Cyclingnews and decided to ignore it due to the source.

[Hot Flatus]

The entire story has the same source. Hence this new twist.

If its untrue, Im sure Brailsford will counter it.

[drgannet]

Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

Riiiight. So everything in the Mail is a lie then. Because its the Mail.

No (although that's not an unreasonable assumption to make), but precisely because it was the Mail that first broke the 'story' (and then demanded the right to know what is in the the 'mysterious' package, one of many that are sent out to different teams during a season, without giving any information as to why it was significant). But do we have a right to know who the source of this allegation is, because that might actually have a bearing on things? No, apparently not. Or a right to even know what the allegation was? No, apparently not. Instead we have the Mail and the BBC whipping up a storm and feeding the gullible British public a conspiracy theory. It really has been disgraceful gutter journalism.

Now that there is no story, the journalists in question are trying to save face. Personally, I think after his initial error Brailsford has played them all for fools.

[Hot Flatus]

That is an 'interesting' conclusion to draw from the events of the past few months and one in which, apart from a few blinkered flag-wavers, you are pretty much on your own.

There is a reason why pretty much everyone is sceptical about Team Sky, even papers and cycling journalists who have previously feted Sky. I get that you aren't seeing it, but I suspect that is more to do with a lack of knowledge and a reluctance to even accept the possibility of that Team Sky's oft-repeated promises to be "transparent" and "whiter than white" might be worthless.

As it stands, the story is still right up there. Nothing has been put to bed. Nobody with any sense (and that is pretty much everybody) accepts what Brailsford says on trust. Why? Because he is highly unreliable. He has been found out on every salient supposed 'fact' he put forward prior to the commons hearing. He tried to claim that the package was for another cyclist at another race (said cyclist put him right about that very publically), he tried to claim Wiggins wasnt even there when said medecine was alledgedly administered (youtube clip proved otherwise). Now he makes a claim as to the content of the package. Why accept this given his history of 'mistakes'? Is it because he is telling you what you want to hear?

These arent just "mistakes", just as the hiring of a notorious doping doctor (who is now banned for life) in 2010-11 was not a "mistake". There were people in Team Sky who had been in the same previous team as this doping doctor when he was doping the team and yet nobody objected. There was already an investigation in the Netherlands into this doctor at the time of hiring and this was in the public domain.

It takes a perculiar type of naivity to blindly accept Brailsfords glib attempts to brush all of this off.

Yes, we all enjoy a bit of sporting success from national riders and teams, but not at the price of integrity and honesty, including at a personal level from us as spectators.

YMMV.

[drgannet]

There is a reason why pretty much everyone is sceptical about Team Sky, even papers and cycling journalists who have previously feted Sky. I get that you aren't seeing it, but I suspect that is more to do with a lack of knowledge and a reluctance to even accept the possibility of that Team Sky's oft-repeated promises to be "transparent" and "whiter than white" might be worthless.

I can see where people are coming from perfectly well, and your suspicions are wrong; it is 'more to do' with being a scientist where one is trained not to leap to wild conclusions based on a lack of factual data, of which there is precious little in this 'story'. If the journalists can actually dig up something concrete then fine, let's see it.

[Hot Flatus]

Why do you think there was a Commons comittee investigation?

Perhaps, as a scientist, you should explain to them why they were wasting their time 

[Veloman]

Why do you think there was a Commons comittee investigation?

Perhaps, as a scientist, you should explain to them why they were wasting their time 

Politicians doing political things?

Surely the UKAD report will be of more value?

And if there was real concern then perhaps UCI or WADA would be very interested along with IOC as if doping was endemic within Sky, who worked hand in glove with BC, then all those track cyclists would be under suspicion and we would have a scenario akin to Russia.

Alternatively, nothing to see here so move on.

[Hot Flatus]

The UCI?  Would that be the UCI that colluded with Armstrong...forewarned him of a positive dope test so that he could have a back-dated prescription fabricated?

Would this be the UCI that subsequently accepted a $100, 000 donation from Armstrong (2002)?

You havent really got a handle on this whole thing, have you.

[Veloman]

Have you noticed that the old UCI folk have been replaced?

Have you noticed things have moved on since 2002?

Your haven't really got a handle on this whole thing, have you?

[Hot Flatus]

Funnily enough, yes. I had noticed there is a new president of the UCI.

Funnily enough its Brian Cookson, former head of British Cycling, and former member of the management Board of Team Sky, who's son works for Team Sky.

I cant begin to imagine how cross he'd be if it turned out that Team Sky won by using PEDs.

 

[citoyen]

Have you noticed that the old UCI folk have been replaced?

Remind me, when did Wiggins win the Tour? And when was Cookson elected?

[Si S]

Funnily enough, yes. I had noticed there is a new president of the UCI.

Funnily enough its Brian Cookson, former head of British Cycling, and former member of the management Board of Team Sky, who's son works for Team Sky.

I cant begin to imagine how cross he'd be if it turned out that Team Sky won by using PEDs.

my bold

I do believe that would now be Dimension Data, a team whose World Tour status problems recently magically resolved themselves.

Nothing to see here........

Pass the tinfoil hat.

[Hot Flatus]

More gutter journalism reporting, verbatim, the responses of the Parliamentary committee to the exposé that Brailsford tried to bribe a journalist out of revealing the 'package' story.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-facing-further-questions-after-conflicting-statements-emerge

Of course, if tbe MPs were scientists they would be looking for evidence and proof, rather than the....err....evidence they are seeking.

[Jakob]

They are certainly putting up a lot of smokescreens.

[Hot Flatus]

Stock Brailsford tactics have been to say what people want to hear, making promises in the full knowledge that if he rides it out it will fall off the front page and nobody will remember to come back and check if he has done what he said he would do.

We've seen this with promises to release all data, carry out investigations, be open to scrutiny and be 'transparent'.

Problem for him now is that he has a parliamentary committee looking into him. Not sure if he'll be able to wheedle himself out of this one. UKAD are already contradicting his claims that they have been given Wiggins's full medical records.

[Hot Flatus]

Here is a comedic example of just how FOS Team Sky are:

Shane Sutton: "Sky are the cleanest team I've ever seen"

Committee: "Mr. Sutton, in your long illustrious cycling career have you ever witnessed any doping?"

Shane Sutton: "No I havent".

 

You couldn't make it up.

[giropaul]

Stock Brailsford tactics have been to say what people want to hear, making promises in the full knowledge that if he rides it out it will fall off the front page and nobody will remember to come back and check if he has done what he said he would do.

We've seen this with promises to release all data, carry out investigations, be open to scrutiny and be 'transparent'.

Problem for him now is that he has a parliamentary committee looking into him. Not sure if he'll be able to wheedle himself out of this one. UKAD are already contradicting his claims that they have been given Wiggins's full medical records.

Just to be clear, the Committee is looking into doping across sport. The performance of UKAD with reference to athletics in front of the Committee set entirely new lows . It emerged that UKAD emailed athletes before big events notifying them that tests would be taking place !

[sojournermike]

Stock Brailsford tactics have been to say what people want to hear, making promises in the full knowledge that if he rides it out it will fall off the front page and nobody will remember to come back and check if he has done what he said he would do.

We've seen this with promises to release all data, carry out investigations, be open to scrutiny and be 'transparent'.

Problem for him now is that he has a parliamentary committee looking into him. Not sure if he'll be able to wheedle himself out of this one. UKAD are already contradicting his claims that they have been given Wiggins's full medical records.

Just to be clear, the Committee is looking into doping across sport. The performance of UKAD with reference to athletics in front of the Committee set entirely new lows . It emerged that UKAD emailed athletes before big events notifying them that tests would be taking place !

Surely, they have to notify to ensure that our athletes are competing on a level playing field.

[Hot Flatus]

One has to wonder if time is running out for Brailsford, if not Team Sky. Brailsford's attempts to evade, obfuscate and misconstrue are finally starting to catch up with him.

Even Sky's former hagiographers are turning against them. Walsh is calling for Brailsford to go. Ive yet to see any press report that isnt an excoriation.

 Ken Matheson, a former BC coach, is acting as a conduit for disgruntled whistle-blowers from Brailsford's BC days.

Here is a neat summary of what is going on:

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/12/commentary-team-sky-has-a-history-of-credibility-issues-with-dave-brailsford-at-centre-stage/

[Hot Flatus]

Wiggins's former doctor, whilst at Garmin, doesnt believe the Fluimucil story...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-former-doctor-likens-fluimucil-story-to-the-armstrong-days/

[mattc]

https://twitter.com/cervelo_nick/status/812291881170247681

Merry Xmas to Flatus, and his band of unfoolables

[Hot Flatus]