Yeah he is. Absolute turncoat, probably realised he’s been duped and isn’t as relevant as he could be.
@Caedus I’d look at the work of Shane Stokes, Dan Benson, Paul Kimmige, Dan Roan, Martha Kelner, Sean Ingle, Matt Lawton, Mark Daly and the work of Ross Tucker if you’re really after people who are asking hard questions and swimming against the tide of bullshit.
I’d read cyclingtips.com for an unbiased slant on the cycling news. And Ross Tucker has a website called https://sportsscientists.com that he posts articles to. Unsure about how regularly he updates it, so worth a follow on Twitter too.
Tough to say, but I don’t think the MPs would have taken a single source as credible if it wasn’t an insider with pretty intimate knowledge of what was going on at the time.
What is Sky’s involvement in this? I read something about the team being formed because James Murdoch and some other fella wanting a piece of the Cycling glory post Beijing Olympics.
Are they simply providing the finance and sponsorship and otherwise pretty well hands off - leaving what happens on the road, so to speak, in the hands of Brailsford & co?
Thanks - I’ve never been big into cycling, but have never really liked Team Sky - largely I admit because of a general loathing for Sky.
Everything under the Sky banner is ridiculously self-congratulatory, their heads are so far up their own waste chutes - and the cycling team felt no different, particularly their ‘whiter than white’ self-image.
Was kind of hoping I could lay this sin at Murdoch the younger’s door as well. Sadly not.
Still, there’s a bit of me that is revelling in this all falling apart at the seams.
Any other aging OG Bike Wankers smiling wryly at all the Johnny Come-Latelys being shocked and appalled and apalled and shocked by all this shocking and appalling news?
I’m an absolute mark for clean sport stuff, so when they launched I kind of assumed they’d be doing everything they could to not just live by the spirit rather than letter of the doping rules, but also make sure they were seen to be doing so; not just expect everyone to take it on trust.
It’s nice to see that a lot of reaction I’ve read and discussed is along the lines of ‘no due process’ or ‘he never had an opportunity to speak out or answer questions’. The wool is truly pulled over eyes at times and will take a lot to change people’s opinions.
I got absolutely shot down in the World Champs athletics thread last year for expressing my view that Bolt dopes (and let’s not talk about the reaction Gatland got for winning gold/beating Bolt). If you watch a sport that is as self destructive as cycling is for long enough, your opinions change. If guys who doped to a ridiculous level are saying Sky are dirty, they’re probably worth listening to.
I’m finding this whole thing hilarious tbf. They’ve done nothing but pedal untruths and strong PR from the outset, perpetuated by Walsh, Moore, Fotheringham and Syed (by far the worst), who have fallen for it hook, line and sinker, and actually profited from them. It’s been a long time coming. No, it’s not good for the sport, but cycling will survive. I don’t see sky surviving too much longer Chris Froome’s Salbutamol outcome dependant obvs and Brailsford is a dead man walking.
And I’ll just leave this quote from Sir Brad himself here