Team Sky, Brailsford and doping

[Noodley]

I have to admit I am disappointed in the reaction..."shock" "disappointment" - well get fecking hard on them!!!!

 

[Noodley]

...not that there is doping at SKY! I mean the previous associations!!!

 

[raindog]

Surely we all knew that trying to form a team where absolutely no member of staff had ever had a brush with doping somewhere in the past was always going to be impossible?

 

[DogTired]

Surely we all knew that trying to form a team where absolutely no member of staff had ever had a brush with doping somewhere in the past was always going to be impossible?

Considering the 'shock' of people like Sean Yates is that true??? Also Sky have to be very careful of their claims if this is the case. Someone (I think Rich P) has made a good point regarding how would Sky go about checking their riders for proof of non-involvement in doping.

 

[montage]

Rogers under a bit of fire as well - I'm starting to wonder if a doping amnesty for the riders would be a step forward. Everyone admits everything anonymously or not, the riders get a verbal slap on the wrist and the network and structure behind doping is brought to light

 

[Nearly there]

I didn't realise Michael Barry was part of Armstrongs lot.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I was surprised when Sky signed Rogers and Barry given their past associations. But I do remember Brailsford saying that he had had to abandon his completely strict initial policy because it was impossible to operate. In other words, the success demanded by the sponsors was not going to happen if the team were unable to sign people who had no hint of any past involvement with doping. Of course, that is in no way as bad as what USPS / DIscovery were involved in, but it is a small step down the same road.

 

[rich p]

I was surprised when Sky signed Rogers and Barry given their past associations. But I do remember Brailsford saying that he had had to abandon his completely strict initial policy because it was impossible to operate. In other words, the success demanded by the sponsors was not going to happen if the team were unable to sign people who had no hint of any past involvement with doping. Of course, that is in no way as bad as what USPS / DIscovery were involved in, but it is a small step down the same road.

I thought he relaxed the strict rule to allow staff with a dodgy history but not riders but |I'm not 100% certain.

 

[Crackle]

Rogers claims he used Ferrari for training only and curtailed his association when he joined t-mobile, at their insistence. Perhaps they had someone better

 

[rich p]

Rogers claims he used Ferrari for training only and curtailed his association when he joined t-mobile, at their insistence. Perhaps they had someone better

...and Frank Schleck gave Fuentes 7000 euros for a training programme while all his other clients were getting blood transfusions! You couldn't write it!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Well, if you read the USADA document, what level of 'preparation' you got from Ferrari did seem to depend what you paid him, and I suspect that at the bottom there was a simple 'follow this training program' level for a couple of thousand Euros, in contrast to the hundreds of thousands that would get you an on-demand EPO dealer (in addition to a much more complex training program). The thing about Schleck is that Ferrari had already been blacklisted by this stage so even if he wasn't getting dope off him, he was still knowingly working with Ferrari which is enough to get him banned.

 

[thom]

Well, if you read the USADA document, what level of 'preparation' you got from Ferrari did seem to depend what you paid him, and I suspect that at the bottom there was a simple 'follow this training program' level for a couple of thousand Euros, in contrast to the hundreds of thousands that would get you an on-demand EPO dealer (in addition to a much more complex training program). The thing about Schleck is that Ferrari had already been blacklisted by this stage so even if he wasn't getting dope off him, he was still knowingly working with Ferrari which is enough to get him banned.

Yeah, it was just against the rules so there is no ethical defence in Frank's case and he was just lucky the wire transfer failed (or whatever his flimsy defence was) even if he was just getting a bread and water training plan.

The whole thing is just so pervasive, it's hard to believe in much of the current peloton, particularly with stories of things like AICAR around. Leipheimer's testimony suggests LA would have been keen to give it a go in 2009/2010.

However I really think SKY are true to their advertised ethic in intention and in their rider support. Without more than scepticism to go on, I think there is a danger to point the finger at people like Brailsford too harshly, implying he is complicit in doping within SKY. They likely set the very highest standards in the peloton in practice. But for me, Sean Yates is not credible and Mick Rogers has questions to answer - I hope Brailsford will address these issues proactively without being forced to like in the case of Leinders.

 

[Crackle]

I agree about Yates. It's not credible he didn't know and that reflects heavily on Sky. He surely has to go.

 

[rich p]

Schleck gave money to Fuentes not Ferrari I believe but your point still stands.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Schleck gave money to Fuentes not Ferrari I believe but your point still stands.

Sorry, it's easy to get the dodgy doctors confused...