Sky - gaming the system?

[Hot Flatus]

If you look really closely you'll see I edited my post (before you posted) as I became aware of the factual inaccuracy.  You are quite right, Edmundson is saying the Tramadol was not supplied by Sky. 

Perhaps not the first time you have jumped to a conclusion and been wrong!

Perhaps you'd like to put some meat on the bones and list the other instances where I have done as you claim...

Given that Barry detailed how Team Sky had given out Tramadol like sweets it was not an unreasonable mistake on my part, but I know you rely on scoring cheap points.

[Veloman]

You aren't getting it are you.

Peters says that Edmundson's claim not to have injected "did not ring true". Therefore he did not believe that Edmundson had not injected. He believed he had injected. Therefore he will have believe that Edmundson had violated a rule.

My bold

Peters also states:

"Wearing my hat as a doctor, for somebody to be culpable they cannot be ill and I suspect he was ill. If he's not able to give informed consent to what he is doing and say, 'I understand this', then in my world, as a psychiatrist, you are not culpable, because your illness is talking."

Perhaps this explains the action that was taken for the good of the individual (Edmondson) particularly when:

Team Sky say they took legal advice at the time of the incident and say that, although Edmondson had been in breach of team rules by possessing the equipment, they were under no obligation to report the case to the authorities.

Again, I am tempted to believe the analysis of the professional in this matter, namely Peters, rather than some views floated on YACF.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?

[Hot Flatus]

It is not Peters's place to abuse his position and professional standing in deciding whether Edmundson was 'culpable'.
Peters believed Edmondson to have injected. He did not report it.  Edmondson says he told Peters he had injected.
Peters is, in effect, discounting anything Edmundson said because mental. To be fair, Edmundson is also recognising this in himself, but that doesnt mean that his current assertion that he informed Peters of actually injecting is untrue.

Again, I am tempted to believe the analysis of the professional in this matter, namely Peters, rather than some views floated on YACF.

I'm mildly amused by your constant appeal to authority throughout this thread. You are impressed by titles, and you assume they bestow integrity. I'm sure your life spent in the forces where you will have been conditioned to accept authority can't be helping you move towards a more open-minded critique of the actions of Sir Bradley Wiggins, Sir David Brailsford, Dr Steven Peters and not to mention Dr Richard Freeman.

I'm sure you hold in equal esteem Dr Michele Ferrari, Dr Geert Leinders et al.

[Veloman]

It is not Peters's place .....

Again, I am tempted to believe the analysis of the professional in this matter, namely Peters, rather than some views floated on YACF.

I'm mildly amused  ..........

I’m not mildly amused by your comments, I’m totally rolling about the floor laughing!  Good to see a personal attack being used to justify opinion.  For the record, Professor Peters might be a more appropriate title for Peters, but let’s not get too bogged down with facts.  Your reference to my former life and authority compliance, or indeed me being impressed with titles, is very amusing as anyone who knows me, and indeed my time in my former life, will know that I am soooo 180 when it comes to such matters as authority compliance and being impressed by titles.  Good to see you can highlight apparent shortcomings in others with such ease and make such sweeping outcomes without even taking time to find out much about the subject.  Can I assume you have a similar deft ability when analysing yourself?  Self-awareness is a very interesting subject and no doubt something that Steve Peters could write a book about.

I base my opinion on evidence and as yet I have yet to see anything that Sky have done that has transgressed the law or regulations.  I assume that is why no formal action has been taken against them.

I’m not impressed by titles or authority and do not appeal to authority as you suggest.  I am rather keen to listen to a subject matter expert regarding the mental health of someone and what constitutes appropriate action regarding an incident, particularly when ]Team Sky say they took legal advice at the time of the incident and say that, although Edmondson had been in breach of team rules by possessing the equipment, they were under no obligation to report the case to the authorities.  Much rather consider evidence and subject matter expert opinion over the popular views of folk on YACF.

[Hot Flatus]

You like to hear the views of experts and you choose to listen to the views of a man at the centre of the possible rule infringement.  And yet you don't seem interested in the views of the former and current head of UKAD. Nor the head of the Parliamentary Committee. Somewhat selective in your choice of evidence.

[sojournermike]

It would improve the thread if everyone could simply not make or respond to personal attacks or comments.

We all have our views and make our own, sometimes biased, judgements. There is no evidence of wrongdoing yet, either because it's been destroyed or there was no wrongdoing. To me, the weight of what we have seen smells really bad, but those who want to take a more cautious stance are entitled to their view - even if I think it would be wise to avoid the nationalistic hubris we've been treated to over the last few years.

Mike

[Hot Flatus]

You carry on. But I'm pretty sure Veloman is enjoying himself and so am I.  It's hardly personal attack, just a bit of gentle friday night sparring with no insults thrown.

[Veloman]

Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?

I would like evidence rather than supposition or pointed fingers.  Perhaps if Thomas confessed that Sky were a dope fuelled and results obsessed organisation that operated under such secrecy and cunning that no matter who looked through the looking glass they would find no evidence.

So I believe they are not the doped riders of the past and no doubt they push to the limits of the envelope in every aspect of their operations.  Are they ethical?  All depends on how you define ethical.  Was Contador ethical when he attacked Schleck after Schleck dropped his chain?  Was Hindes acting ethically when he fell off in the team sprint final thereby forcing a restart?  Was it ethical for Porte to drop back and give Froome gels knowing they would incur a 20s time penalty that was better than time that could have been lost had he not have taken the gels?  The list goes on and folk will have an opinion on what constitutes ethical behaviour and whether Sky are ethical or just push the envelope to the limit. 

One thing appears certain, Sky are not liked due to the ruthless pursuit of results and tactics.  The way Contador attacked in the last Paris-Nice was the racing of the old school and would no doubt have impressed Hinault.  But not Sky and many other commentators have said while it is good for spectators, it will not win TdF as the tactics of Sky appear to exert such control.  Although I don’t follow F1, I suppose that Sky are akin to Mercedes, and no doubt viewed in the same light.

[Hot Flatus]

None of the ethical conundrums you have posited involved drugs.

[Veloman]

You carry on. But I'm pretty sure Veloman is enjoying himself and so am I.  It's hardly personal attack, just a bit of gentle friday night sparring with no insults thrown.

Actually, I disagree as you impugn my reputation and take liberties with assuming I behave in a particular manner regarding my response to authority.  You also suggest I have been conditioned to accept authority due to time spent in a particular organisation.  A very personal attack and quite unnecessary.

Happy to debate whether Sky are gaming the system without the need to resort to personal attack.

[sojournermike]

The times has published an article saying uci has opened an investigation into a possible rules breach with respect to the needles


Contador is a great racer, but his power to weight the other day raised some eyebrows - 6.85w/kg for 15 minutes apparently. Good work!

[Hot Flatus]

You carry on. But I'm pretty sure Veloman is enjoying himself and so am I.  It's hardly personal attack, just a bit of gentle friday night sparring with no insults thrown.

Actually, I disagree as you impugn my reputation and take liberties with assuming I behave in a particular manner regarding my response to authority.  You also suggest I have been conditioned to accept authority due to time spent in a particular organisation.  A very personal attack and quite unnecessary.

Happy to debate whether Sky are gaming the system without the need to resort to personal attack.

Didn't realise you were so sensitive. Oh well.

[Veloman]

None of the ethical conundrums you have posited involved drugs.

The use of TUEs has been extensively debated earlier in the thread and no legal action has resulted from abuse of TUEs so far as Sky are concerned.  Whether it is ethical will be debated for many moons to come as the whole point of ethics is that it is opinion based.  If something is illegal, that is different.

[Jaded]

Legality is opinion based too.

[Exit Stage Left]

Legality is opinion based too.

Less so under statute law, and we are talking about the Tour de France mainly.

[Veloman]

Legality is opinion based too.

Agreed.  But case law and precedent is a good guide.

The debate regarding "is doing something legal also considered unethical" is often the question and whether Sky acted in an unethical manner will be opinion based.  Whether they acted unlawfully will be based on rules/regulations/law and require evidence to enable action.  No doubt about the legality of the gel example as both Porte and Froome were docked 20s and fined 200 Swiss francs while the DS (Portal) was fined 1000 Swiss francs.  Whether it was ethical is another debate.  Similar to Hindes falling off, legal yes, but ethical?

[Exit Stage Left]

I suppose the question is whether sport is more or less interesting if it's entirely ethical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVGTVrQd6M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_It_Ain%27t_So,_Joe_(song)

As a cultural phenomenon, it's supposed to be flawed. So carry on.

[Jakob]

There does seem to be a 'Sky can do nothing right' attitude with a very rigid right/wrong approach. The real world is messier than that.

Pure nonsense. If Sky hadn't continuously lied, evaded and done all kinds of fancy footwork every single time one of these issues appear (and there's been several by now!), you might have had a point.
 As it is, you have a fucking commitee looking into their way of operating and they still can't give a single straight answer. (or don't bother turning up).

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?

I would like evidence rather than supposition or pointed fingers.  Perhaps if Thomas confessed that Sky were a dope fuelled and results obsessed organisation that operated under such secrecy and cunning that no matter who looked through the looking glass they would find no evidence.

So nothing short of a Sky confession of doping would do it?

[Jaded]

Legality is opinion based too.

Agreed.  But case law and precedent is a good guide.

erm... case law and precedent are opinion based.

[Pedal Castro]

I suppose the question is whether sport is more or less interesting if it's entirely ethical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVGTVrQd6M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_It_Ain%27t_So,_Joe_(song)

As a cultural phenomenon, it's supposed to be flawed. So carry on.

This prompted me to revisit the story of Shoeless Joe. The interesting thing is that history seems to be absolving him, and maybe he was simply the scapegoat falsely accused by the powers that be. Parallels to be drawn?

[toontra]

It's been said before but worth repeating.  I wonder if any of the Sky apologists here - those prepared to bend over backwards and contort themselves in knots to give Sky the benefit of the doubt on every new release of damning evidence - would be so generous to a foreign team?

[mattc]

It's been said before but worth repeating.  I wonder if any of the Sky apologists here - those prepared to bend over backwards and contort themselves in knots to give Sky the benefit of the doubt on every new release of damning evidence - would be so generous to a foreign team?

[ I'm not sure repeating it has any value, but it's more interesting than just repeatedly posting the same mud, so I'll happily respond:]

I am in no way convinced that Sky are innocent (legally or ethically) so I cannot speak for these "apologists", whoever they are. If there is bias, or favouritism, causing fans to give Sky some leeway, it is a stretch to call it nationalistic. Sports fans all have loyalty to SOME degree to the team/players that they follow. (there are a few self-proclaimed "neutrals", but in reality I find they always have bias towards someone!)

I've never thought of Sky as being primarily British - they have plenty of foreign riders and doctors. And Geraint is one of my favourites They just happen to have employed several Brits that I follow (including Sir Wiggo); so I probably do have a "bias" towards Sky vs other teams, but it's not fanatical. There are several riders who I'd rather see win races/stages than the Sky train.

[mzjo]

It's been said before but worth repeating.  I wonder if any of the Sky apologists here - those prepared to bend over backwards and contort themselves in knots to give Sky the benefit of the doubt on every new release of damning evidence - would be so generous to a foreign team?

[ I'm not sure repeating it has any value, but it's more interesting than just repeatedly posting the same mud, so I'll happily respond:]

I am in no way convinced that Sky are innocent (legally or ethically) so I cannot speak for these "apologists", whoever they are. If there is bias, or favouritism, causing fans to give Sky some leeway, it is a stretch to call it nationalistic. Sports fans all have loyalty to SOME degree to the team/players that they follow. (there are a few self-proclaimed "neutrals", but in reality I find they always have bias towards someone!)

I've never thought of Sky as being primarily British - they have plenty of foreign riders and doctors. And Geraint is one of my favourites They just happen to have employed several Brits that I follow (including Sir Wiggo); so I probably do have a "bias" towards Sky vs other teams, but it's not fanatical. There are several riders who I'd rather see win races/stages than the Sky train.

Since when has ethics had anything to do with sport, particularly professional sport? Winning for your sponsors is what counts (which means exposure by whatever means) and anything which isn't clearly against the rules must be not against the rules.

I'm not sure that the "Sky train" wins that many races these days (compared to the other team "trains" at least).

Legality is opinion based too.

Less so under statute law, and we are talking about the Tour de France mainly.

Tour de France - that's not a cycle race is it? More about crowds waiting for the free giveouts from the caravan (where ethics have no place at all ) and big business doing deals.

Why is a confirmed doper like Virenque still a much loved commentator and a high profile star for Festina watches - while it would be difficult to see Armstrong in the same role?

Why is the Sky thing tearing the UK scene apart when it doesn't even get a mention on "Les Rois de la Pédale"?

Is Sky falling into the same trap as Armstrong did, namely acting like axxxholes, when a straighter, more transparent approach might have given a more credible result?
FWIW I remain convinced that if Armstrong had not insisted on coming back after 2005 he would probably still have his TdF record. If he had stopped after 5 wins I am sure he would have got away with it. Too high a profile doesn't win friends or even respect.

As someone who has had to use Tramadol in fairly high doses (I think) for pain relief I cannot think of anything more dangerous than a peloton well doped-up negotiating a tight finish at road-racing speeds with riders rubbing shoulders, wheels etc. No wonder there are crashes!