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!