Anyone looked over the 2009 Tour final standing's Wiggins finished 4th 30 odd seconds behind Armstrong that year...
Yeh,
1st Bertie Beefsteak
2nd One of the Schlecks
3rd Lancey(on the road)
4th Wiggo
5th The other Schleck
So, err, that'll be a clean tour then. Nothing at all suspicious about a track rider finishing amongst those riders after a steady credible build up of Grand Tours finishes.
Yeah the same BW that had only finished one Tour before then in 139th place...
Sky messed up when they decided at the outset not to have additional in-house anti doping measures as it was deemed too costly and inefficient. Garmin have a no-needle policy so don't even inject vitamin supplements. Have read Skys The Limit.and given British Cyclings deliberate concentrating on track due to the road problem with drugs, and their 'no doper' rule precluding millar joining, they seemed very blase about the need for an anti doping program.
If Sean Yates stays then the policy has no credibility, his pleas of ignorance certainly don't. DS at Astana?!...
Wait till all this sh17 filters down to MTB'ing XC racing!!
One guy who rides a full suss 29er in every race and is a monster from Eastern europe............+ all the rest of the eight or so riders that form the lead group in every world cup race while the rest get a proper punishment bumm1ng.
binners - Memberthe (very thinly-veiled)implication was that there are an awful lot of other sports that are still chock full of dopers, and that cycling is the only sport that is really taking the issue seriously.
I know a chap who was selected for the Commonwealth games team in another sport in 2006. He quietly declined, and explained to his coach and teammates it was because he was basically filled to the back teeth with steroids. He's still competing at lower levels where they know he's not likely to get tested, and helps coach kids too, all with the full knowledge of everyone around him.
<intentionally vague, obviously>
Well the Sky cull continues - no big surprise that Yates has been given the boot. Steven de Jongh has also gone.
Who will be next?
Who will be next?
Mick Rogers.
FWIW this policy is misguided as it does nothing to help people admit their past (without being sacked) and will therefore continue the omerta.
Wiggo with 'suspicious' plaster on arm
Apparently from blood sample at doping control.
Andy
piemonster - Member
Yeh,1st Bertie Beefsteak
2nd One of the Schlecks
3rd Lancey(on the road)
4th Wiggo
5th The other SchleckSo, err, that'll be a clean tour then. Nothing at all suspicious about a track rider finishing amongst those riders after a steady credible build up of Grand Tours finishes.
Glad somebody else has noticed this, i want Wiggins to be clean...and you'd have to imagine the IOC testing at London 2012 was stringent after the TdF too....but from track success in 2008 to grand tour 4th place in a year?....amongst a gaggle of known dopers?
The Armstrong critics were using Lance's transformation from being a good Classics rider and occasional Tour stage winner to topping the General Classification as proof of doping as it happened in such a short amount of time....applying that train of thought to Wiggins transformation makes me very uncomfortable.
Sean Yates retires from cycling.
The Armstrong critics[ WTF does this even mean?] were using Lance's transformation from being a good Classics rider and occasional Tour stage winner to topping the General Classification as proof of doping as it happened in such a short amount of time....applying that train of thought to Wiggins transformation makes me very uncomfortable.
It was more complicated than that though
It was not taken as proof of doping it was asked whether he could have made the transformation without doping. Some thought his pre dope [ if there ever was a time of this] were so unspectacular - in terms of Grand Tours- that doubts could be raised about whether he could have done it without dope. It was a counter to the argument he would have beaten everyone if they were all clean as well iirc.
I am not sure we can even ask this with Wiggo and we would need to ask how quick would he have done it with dope.
I would also say
LA was already doing the training of a TdF athlete when he was being poor[ not finishing] in tours Wiggo was not fully focused on grand tour training an was focused on track cycling - only man to retain 4 km pursuit gold so he was already track awesome if not road awesome
Clearly wiggo changed his training regime [ LA did not] to target the Tour and he lost 6 kg in order to target the tour/climbs.
First competed in 2006 where he was 123 rd despite being basically a track athlete - 2008 world record + Gold etc
Good Vuleta results as well showing a slow progression
It was a big change for sure but I would expect him to be able to kill folk, in the hills, and he still cannot if he was actually doping tbh.
He still needs the TT to win Tours
I can see why folk might think it but I would want some actual evidence of it rather than just a general suspicion due to transformation.
I expect someone to say it [ my view] has something to do with nationality.
FWIW I would be gutted if he was a doper but I do not think he is
this covers some of it but basically his track goals hampered his tour ones and once he changed and lost weight he could stay with them up the hills
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9389285/Bradley-Wiggins-a-date-with-destiny.html
Clearly bad bad skills by Sky make's them look super guilty! YAtes you're an ass just admit it so cycling can move on. VERY VERY disappointed in TEam sky.
Doh, hadn't spotted this one when I replied to the other one:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sean-yates-off-sky-team?
Digger90
It was only a matter of time really... sad, very sad.But... it's for the good of the sport, and the 'direction of travel' that Sky is taking is the right one.
..But...
Klunk - Member
are there any experienced team management types not involved to some extent in past drug usage ?
Agree.. with both..
Interesting that Yates is making no admission and says it's for 'personal reasons' I'd rather he'd at least 'come clean' like Julich has. No doubt everyone else will take that as admission that was using whilst he was a Lance teammate.
If he did, I'm sure he stopped many years ago, whatever his past he's one of the "good" guys. (He says. Hopefully. Let's hope there's not 'Lance' style "Sean Yates was behind it all" revelations waiting to come out).
Sky's stance was right. Is is still right in the light of the 'Lance Revelations' or even more right??
Like Vaughters has said, 'direction of travel' should be forward, not looking backwards. Should it not matter what someone does and thinks now, not what they did in the past?
Yates is clearly not involved in anything now, if he was he's clearly left it behind and moved on. For the right reasons.
I can understand Brailsford / Sky's reasons but was this the time to say "forget the past. We're interested in now and the future?"
are there any experienced team management types not involved to some extent in past drug usage ?
Brad McGee
there will be others
The interesting part of the McGee article that's doing the rounds is that it was the threat of real jail time that turned around French cycling after Festina and it also can be seen in the USADA interview transcripts. The sooner we have a "sporting fraud" law the better, interviews under police caution should be part of the process for any rider caught doping.
Does Yates seriously expect anyone to believe its an innocent coincidence? Team mate and coach to LA, DS for him at personal invitation with the famously clean Astana team, and friend of "motoman". Post Armageddon (get it) he's totally unemployable. And now totally lacking credibility.
Deviant +1
Given your view of LA you will forgive me if I ignore your instincts on detecting drug cheats
Brad McGeethere will be others
Great one, how many teams and how many cars need filling with guys with race experience, If more teams follow suit I might apply, been watching the tdf since the early nineties how hard can it be 😉 David Millar was probably quite looking forward to a team management role at Sky in his dotage He'll have to look elsewhere now.
but from track success in 2008 to grand tour 4th place in a year?....amongst a gaggle of known dopers?
While riding for Garmin.
If there is one team I would trust to be 100% clean, it is Garmin.
guessing that's a joke about Garmin??
Garmin are essentially poachers turned gamekeepers, so I agree with ratherbeintobago that they are pretty near the top of my list for clean.
Whilst I don't agree with Team Skys approach to former dopers you have got to admire their commitment to their policy and to racing clean.
To be credible a "no history of doping" policy has to have teeth and not just be another meaningless charter. Getting rid of Yates, even if they did make him walk before he was pushed, shows they are at least serious in trying to be open.
Holding on to Yates would not have been credible.
David Millar was probably quite looking forward to a team management role at Sky in his dotage
Millar knew he would never work for Sky as they have always had this policy, Millar was out becuase he was banned, Yates, Jullic, Barry etc were in becuase they lied and Sky trusted their word. The only change now seems to be they are doing more than just trusting peoples word.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20128408 ]another one bites the dust[/url]
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Personally I find it uncomfortable to hear all the "let move on, nothing to see, look forward not this way" train of thought.
Lessons need to be learned, not swept under the carpet. Move forward yes, but with an eye on the past.
It's certainly very interesting what's going on at Sky, I wonder whether it would be possible without the Bank of Murdoch to steam roller through the difficulties of trying to find enough people in cycling who haven't been near dope
Millar knew he would never work for Sky as they have always had this policy, Millar was out becuase he was banned.
He never mentioned that during the long conversations we had about his plans for the future 😉
Alex Dowsett has moved to Moviestar. Can't say I know much about him but the timing would seem to look rather unfortunate, especially with his previous links/comments about Armstrong
He never mentioned that during the long conversations we had about his plans for the future
It's there for all to read in his book. No need for name dropping.
Quite interesting really. He says he was in two minds whether to move to SKY or stay at Garmin but that the SKY project and the posibility of being on a British team and working with his sister really excited him. He was close with Brailsford and Braislford had seemed to sugest there may be a place for him on the team. However later Brailsford told him he couldn't join the team due to the policy of zero tolerance they were implimenting.
Seems to suggest that its not Brailsford's policy and it actually comes from higher up. Maybe SKY corporate management or British Cycling.
Either way it is obvoius that Millar has known from day 1 of the SKY team that he couldn't ride for them, even though he was interested before day 1. Maybe your conversation was before day 1.
It seems now Millar is more interested in politics than team management, given the amount of brown nosing he is doing with McQuaid.
Great one, how many teams and how many cars need filling with guys with race experience, If more teams follow suit I might apply, been watching the tdf since the early nineties how hard can it be
there will be plenty of pro's who aren't big names who didn't dope. They aren't big names essentially because they didn't dope. If McGee (who was a big name) didn't there will be others. Every single one of them should be given a job in a team/ in the car before a former doper, regardless of your rose tinted views of the various personalities the riders that managed to stay clean have already lost so much maoney and prestige to the dopers that to employ a doper in a team ahead of them adds insult to injury
Dowsett has long been rumored to be leaving sky-the timing and destination aren't ideal though!
If McGee (who was a big name)
He was a "big name" to English speakers but this is partly a function of the TV coverage. Liggett and Sherwen call out all the Australians, Brits, Americans and South Africans because their commentary is used for the TV coverage in those countries. If you watch the tour in France, Holland, Spain etc you would have a completely different perspective of who the big names are. Not demeaning McGee's career, but merely pointing out other countries will look at riders from a different perspective.
Alex Dowsett has moved to Moviestar. Can't say I know much about him but the timing would seem to look rather unfortunate, especially with his previous links/comments about Armstrong
The Dowsett/Movistar deal was done back in summer, it was common knowledge at the Worlds 6 weeks ago.
Nothing to do with his Armstrong comments at all (and he was misquoted in that as well).
It would be interesting if they had a clause in each employment contract some like this...
"If it turns out that you have doped and stayed quiet to this point, or are doping whilst working for us, we can claim XXX damages against you".
That would work wouldn't it?
That would work wouldn't it?
I am not an employment lawyer but I would be very surprised if such a clause could be enforced (with regard to conduct prior to employment)
But could it be used to force them to come clean with what they had done up to then?
Nothing to do with his Armstrong comments at all (and he was misquoted in that as well).
Got to agree with the first part but never quite understood how he was misquoted. He himself said:
I just wanted to set the record straight as some things have not been clear in my comments reported in the press today. When I was quoted saying Lance Armstrong is a legend, this was in regard to the charity work he has done, also when I said it doesn't matter, what I mean is that we are racing clean now and it is a different sport to what it was back then.
But the actual quote was:
"He is still a legend of the sport. A guy who had cancer came back and won the Tour de France,"
So he's saying he's a legend of cycling as a guy who came back from cancer to win the TdF as I read it.
As an aside, don't suppose you have any links to articles linking Andy Schleck to Operation Puerto seeing as you brought it up elsewhere?
I am not an employment lawyer but I would be very surprised if such a clause could be enforced (with regard to conduct prior to employment)
I think its a fairly easy clause to enforce, most employment contracts have such entries relating to misleading information upon which employment is based.
It may be more difficult to implement due to a change of policy on existing employees.
If I recall though, weren't they employing most people as contractors not permanent staff so it's not inconceivable that they have annual break clauses in there. Given it's the end of the season, it may be just choosing not to continue the relationship and given the noises about those people leaving being paid off, it may be they've agreed to compensate them for the rest of the contract.
As an aside, don't suppose you have any links to articles linking Andy Schleck to Operation Puerto seeing as you brought it up elsewhere?
Andy wasn't directly linked to Puerto. It was his brother.
Given Andy won't even leave his brothers side to go and win a GT stage it's a fair assumption to make that if Frank was having blood drawn by Fuentes* then so was Andy.
Their nickname isn't Frandy for nothing.
[i]*Obvoiusly this is all moot as Frank just paid 10k for "training advice". OK? Got that? Training adivice, nothing to see here, move along please.[/i]
jfletch - crazylegs said somewhere else that Andy had actually been caught as part of the Fuentes thing. The difference between being caught and having his closest friend/brother caught is a big one. Was just wondering if he had any proper info.
My point about enforceability was the concept of a damages claim, it could well be cause for dismissal, but that is different.
I like the Sky approach, it's tough on themselves but someone has to start the ball rolling on the no dopers front. Am not against Garmin now riding as a clean team but given that they are guilty they can never call for a fully clean team, they are fighting for their jobs in cycling as well as a clean sport (hopefully). Lets hope that other teams go along with SKY's policy or at worst Garmins. If your results are going to be called into question because you have unrepentant ex dopers involved in the team at any level, it's best to ride and manage clean.
Was just wondering if he had any proper info.
He won't because it never happend. He was probably just mixing up Andy and Frank.
It's there for all to read in his book. No need for name dropping.
never read his book and never met the man, I was only guessing that he may want to go to sky but that wasn't really the point I was making.
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread, so has anyone yet managed to draw a link betweens Cav's exit and the policy yet?
........& going back to page one which is where my eyes started to glaze over
those responsible for setting up Team GB (and subsequently Sky) in its present incarnation, said the whole reason they concentrated on the track, and left the road cycling well alone, was that they knew, full-well that all the major teams were systemically doping
Wherever that came from is utter arse. The reason that Team GB concentrated on track is that their funding is medal haul related. count up medals avaialble in all the Olympic, World and Commonwealth cycling disciplines, and then see if you can figure out why track gets No.1 priority
Am not against Garmin now riding as a clean team but given that they are guilty they can never call for a fully clean team
except Garmin introduced their own anti-doping measures, such as the no-needle policy before the UCI took it up, as opposed to Sky who decided having their own was inefficient (this is a team that has the money and attention to detail to go to the lengths of giving each rider toothpaste with a blue line in it) and were happy to delegate all testing responsibility to UCI, WADA etc.
Their declaration was introduced after the Armstrong story broke and was very much a reaction to it. Garmin's approach has more integrity than Sky's, who have lurched from one PR disaster to another (Dowsetts and Cav's long-negotiated moves coinciding with the purge, Brailsford making a statement saying they would "work with" declared dopers appearing to be a softening of their policy once they'd realised how much impact it would have, letting Sean Yates leave during the purge 'unimplicated'...).
