Given the continued stream of revelations, it's probably worth re-watching
Brailsford's January 2017 BBC interview, and then asking oneself: does his performance in that interview match what you'd expect from someone who may (indeed ought to) be feeling justifiably aggrieved that his 100% clean proclamation is being impugned?
Bearing in mind, of course, that:
- he was more than happy to lie about Emma Pooley and invent all sorts of bollocks when asked about 'the package';
- he is content with Sky lying about and covering up his riders' use of Tramadol;
- he clearly thinks it's acceptable to dishonestly exploit a flawed TUE system and conspire with Zorzoli (or at least lie to the UCI) to find a way to get PEDs into Wiggins at the most optimal junctures, despite medical emergency or exceptional circumstances not even being the real justification for the TUEs (by Wiggins' own admission - they were to 'level the playing field' with people who were better than him and more likely to win the key races if he didn't take PEDs);
- recent evidence coming to light on his management style at British Cycling, combined with his conduct at Sky and media lauding in 2012, suggests he got carried away with his 'untouchability';
- his short-on-integrity Murdoch empire employers are likely top-down setting the parameters on matters concerning the most efficacious levels of honesty and transparency at Team Sky;
- he has a now-extensive track record in running a team that has failed to comply with his own much-vaunted zero-tolerance, transparent, 100% clean, no needles (etc) policies.
Regardless of whether 'concrete' evidence exists or may come to light that Sky is systematically doping and getting away with it, and regardless of his riders' wins, Brailsford has spectacularly succeeded in portraying himself (and going out of his way, somewhat imbecilically it seems, to portray himself) as an untrustworthy bullshitter. People rightly object to all the grandstanding on a clearly false and deliberately diversionary 'transparent, 100% clean' platform.....and to the lauding, rewards and accolades founded on this platform in the face of what it has taken a parliamentary select committee investigation, into misuse of public funds on the way to all the success, to (start to) unravel.
For those whose rose-tinted spectacles filter out the lies and bullshit, it would be curious to wonder what kind of narrative they think does or should explain all the lies, bullshit and (mounting) circumstantial evidence.