 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You forgot the winky Martin.....
Sky are accountable and transparent remember.... 😉
Everything is fine at British Cycling
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20161230-British-Cycling-stars-honoured-in-the-New-Year%E2%80%99s-honours-list-0
and Dave Brailsford enjoys the limelight
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/12/commentary-team-sky-has-a-history-of-credibility-issues-with-dave-brailsford-at-centre-stage/
You really think Laura & Jason's success is tainted by this?
And while I agree with some of the points in that Brailsford piece, it's a good old-fashioned hatchet job - the writer clearly has some beef with him.
The Kennys succeed despite British Cycling
The Kennys succeed despite British Cycling
I know that makes a good soundbite, but do you really think it's true?
A lot of the complaints about BC seem to be that it's so ruthless in its focus on the absolute elite riders like them.
eg. Laura thinks Shane Sutton is the best thing since sliced bread, which is hardly the consensus now.
A lot of, if the face fits and that type of atmosphere goes on.
But ultimately, for who's benefit does British Cycling exist for?
Yes the elite, and yes the members at all levels.
Some of the empire building that goes on in BC, does stifle and squander talent .
Remember when people still had a sense of perspective on the TUE thing...
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-drug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/ ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-drug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/[/url]
You know, like proper journalism where people consult independent authorities instead of just taking what David Millar 'felt' at face value.
Didn't the Jiffy bag rear it's head as if it was kenacort then taking it at the end of the finishing day of the dauphine would've been a violation?
Technically yeah, it would, but why would you do that? What would the benefit of it be when you could just wait till the next day? Even if it had happened, how would anyone have derived a genuine performance advantage from it?
Anyway, why not just wait until the leaky people at UKAD feed the next instalment of their findings to The Times or the Mail? Staffed by lots of ex-coppers, so you can rely on their probity.
The Kennys succeed despite British Cycling
Right...
eg. Laura thinks Shane Sutton is the best thing since sliced bread, which is hardly the consensus now.
and TBF Becky James can't sing his praises highly enough. She went through a really tough time with injuries and she credits his support and encouragement when she was questioning her own ability with getting her back to medal-winning ways. BC sounds like a hugely successful, pressurised clique; if you're in your in, if you're out (Nicole Cooke, Jess Varnish) then prepare to be bullied.
And while I agree with some of the points in that Brailsford piece, it's a good old-fashioned hatchet job - the writer clearly has some beef with him.
Shane Stokes makes the Daily Mail look measured. If I ever read anything by him I jump to quotes he's used and skim over his own writing.
On the TUEs put people back on a level playing field argument...
Wiggins is apparently asthmatic and can't breathe as well as others / could die on a Grand Tour without asthma drugs. They just put him on a level playing field.
I'm a bit overweight with no stamina so a TUE for Bute and EPO would help put me back on a level playing field.
Just saying.
Wiggins is a decent cyclist but TUEs ought to require a competitor to refrain from competition for a prescribed length of time after taking the drugs.
New era begins tomorrow
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20161229-HSBC-UK-Partnership-officially-begins-0
BC sounds like a hugely successful, pressurised clique; if you're in your in, if you're out (Nicole Cooke, Jess Varnish) then prepare to be bullied.
Totally agree, though I haven't seen anything to suggest there's a similar culture at Team Sky (and it seems some posters are conflating the two).
Back to the question in the OP - it's more of a media feeding frenzy than a witch hunt IMO, with a load of sharks fighting over a half-eaten tin of sardines.
It is the blurring of the boundaries that needs to be cleared up.
In what capacity was Dave Brailsford asked to appear in front of the select commitee?
Former British Cycling employee or his role in Team Sky?
In what capacity was Dave Brailsford asked to appear in front of the select commitee?
Former British Cycling employee or his role in Team Sky?
Dave B has been on Sky News today, I am sure there will be a link somewhere later
[img] 
[/img]
As with most things, a lot of nothing, be it Strictly or Sky, stirred up buy disgusting people/journalists.
Team Sky has faced tough questions before
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38573615 ]Painful viewing[/url]
An exercise in over use of the hands as much as blatantly refusing to answer fairly simple questions. If you want to build public confidence this isn't the way.
That was a more hostile interview than he's probably used to, but he doesn't take criticism well does he?
I thought he might start crying at a couple of points.
Chris Froomes book The Climb gives an insight into Dave Brailsford.
"The details were never teased out. Dave's words would mean just what he chose them to mean."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/27563999
Are we supposed to be trashing Brailsford or Froome? It's so hard to keep up. Which one is this week's baddy? Or is that Wiggins?
I just think if they were really lying in a systematic way, they'd be much better at it, like, erm, Lance for example. I know everyone loves to drag him into this stuff, but he was a lot more convincing even though he was a sociopathic cheat. Maybe because he was a sociopathic cheat.
I wonder if UKAD will ever actually complete their investigation or if they're too busy leaking stuff to the press to get on with it.
It will be a real kick in the teeth for road racing if Sky and BC are found to have broken the rules.
With regards to the package, it could be that BC and Sky are being vague is to protect a riders medical history. Perhaps they needed antibiotics for an infection in a sensitive area. If that was the case then they may not have wanted that info in the public domain and the fall-out for family as the papers have a field day. It could be that it was full of dodgy banned substances in which case why not learn a lesson from the LA example and be sure that we will all find out soon enough.
I think cycling as a sport gets a bad deal in the sports doping story. Athletics must have a massive problem, there are loads of ex-dopers at the olympics and world champs and there is not a big fuss about them. Look at the size of rugby players in both codes. The average pro player is now massive compared to only 10-15 years ago. That can't only be advancements in sports science.
Cycling is the easy target for the media as a minority sport that most people now think is all about the best drug user.
I'm a bit overweight with no stamina so a TUE for Bute and EPO would help put me back on a level playing field.
Interestingly that was a scolarly view held by some researchers in the 80s that EPO would help level the heomicrit playing field and help athletes recover and maintain health therefore making for safer, fairer racing.
It's got a lot more fundamentalist since then
gastro I agree that there is far more money in other sports, so the vested interests of all concerned to cover up are far greater; if the UCI were supposed to be complicit with Armstrong, you can multiply the financial gain by 1000 for more mainstream sports and their governing bodies.
Funny how much news the Fancy Bears leak of Wiggins TUE had compared to the same leak about, say, Mo Farah's TUE use. There's as much smoke around him as Wiggins; he's trained with Salazar AND Aden (a bit like a cyclist working with both Fuentes and Ferrari), tweeted a picture of him training in a different country to the one he was actually in (which suggested he wasn't with Aden), and been less than truthful (or forgetful) in previous statements about what meds he'd had. Doesn't seem to interest the press so much.
I disagree with the patient confidentiality argument purely because that would have been the explanation offered, "sorry we can't tell you publicly due to confidentiality". They haven't been vague, they've been specific, and found to be untrue (Emma Pooley).
With regards to the package, it could be that BC and Sky are being vague is to protect a riders medical history. Perhaps they needed antibiotics for an infection in a sensitive area. If that was the case then they may not have wanted that info in the public domain and the fall-out for family as the papers have a field day.
But you could trust an ethical body like UKAD not to leak confidential information right? It's not like a photograph of Simon Cope's expenses form miraculously found its way to the Times is it, oh...
I just think if they were really lying in a systematic way, they'd be much better at it
I think it's pretty clear that Sky aren't anything like as used to this sort of press attention as they're getting, you can sense that DB is trying to be as evasive as he possibly can be in that BBC interview for instance. I think they've not had to lie in systematic way, as no-one has questioned them before, or has certainly taken their answers at face value. And now they are, Team Sky and DB in particular are obviously not being as clear as they could be
Somebody said earlier that
David Walsh is an imbecile!
....perhaps a bit cruel.
Have a listen to him talking about Lance Armstrong.
Starts at about 27:40
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b087pq8n
I don't think David Walsh is an imbecile, but he seems to have gone a little bonkers in a quite public way. He seems to operate in a small sports journalistic bubble where they're desperate to be the next David Walsh by proving that Team Sky is the new Lance Armstrong while he is discredited and hated as an apologist for Sky, who are supposed to be the new US Postal.
But what's maybe more telling is that he spend half of his Sunday Times column last week basically just saying that he once saw Ian Wright meeting an old teacher and he's a nice guy, but he thinks the Match of the Day pundit team is a bit rubbish. Ground-breaking stuff.
Perhaps David Walsh wants to be the next David Walsh?
An interesting read: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/all-aboard-the-magic-bus-3974
Imbedded journo at the dauphine '11.
On the final Friday, talk about Uran needing a TUE ( and phoning ole dr Mario Zorzoli no less) due to difficulty breathing. Nothing about Brad though (despite him needing the package delivered to him the next day!)
And interesting comments from Brailsford re. needing anti doping personnel on the bus to stop doping [i]after[/i] the race!!!
There's nothing going on here.....
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/jan/13/dave-brailsford-team-sky-cycling-control
They are possibly supposed to emphasise competence and to distract from substance. On this occasion, however, they seemed to have gone out of control, as if some unseen hand had surreptitiously turned the relevant dial way past the optimum setting.
😆
Prediction: DB gone before the Tour.
On the final Friday, talk about Uran needing a TUE ( and phoning ole dr Mario Zorzoli no less) due to difficulty breathing. Nothing about Brad though (despite him needing the package delivered to him the next day!)
Why do you think none of the British media seem remotely bothered about Uran despite the reference having been there in public view since 2011?
I thought the man city case was interesting. In football it's Team responsibility for whereabouts info? Lol
I bet there are more than a few track and field and cyclists grinding their teeth at that. How does that work with wada's codes about individual responsibility?
Why do you think none of the British media seem remotely bothered about Uran despite the reference having been there in public view since 2011?
1) I don't think Uran is the first British winner of the Tour de France
2) they didn't try to hide the TUE for Uran. Or the even the (retrospective) one for Froome
3) funnily no mention of Wiggins being ill and needing medicines specially flown over for the UK but mention that doping immediately after a race needs to be policed (somewhat out of the blue by DB, but hey there's nothing going on here, no way, I don't even know why I brought that up.... 😉 ).
So the Uran TUE is okay for the same issues as Wiggins and - what sounds like quite likely - the same drugs? It doesn't seem very consistent, but you're a bit more clued up than me. Is Wiggins subject to special rules?
Who said Uran's TUE was ok? Your question was why wasn't the British media bothered about it.
Why were Sky not transparent about Wiggins but were with Uran for apparently the exact same thing?
Also, you might want to be a bit more clued up about Zorzoli too. Also Dr Leinders while your at it... 😀
HTH.
So Sky broke the rules there?
There's nothing going on here.....
I'll only accept that there's nothing going on if I hear it from Dave.
The point of that article was that it was the same race as being discussed over the medical package flown at special request for Wiggins in front of the parliamentary sub committee. And Brailsford being criticised for being less than transparent.
So why don't we wait and see what the outcome of that enquiry is and maybe you'll have an answer. Because I'm not getting to ask the questions am I?
Now, why don't you tell me what you think about sky not being transparent about Wiggins. You don't seem very keen on answering any of these questions do you? It's always questions, questions with you...
Now, why don't you tell me what you think about sky not being transparent about Wiggins. You don't seem very keen on answering any of these questions do you? It's always questions, questions with you...
I suspect you'll find the answer is medical confidentiality. Ie: if Wiggins doesn't want to disclose his medical records, the doctor isn't allowed to share them because he'd be in breach of General Medical Council guidelines and would potentially be struck off, lose his career, his reputation, his livelihood. Technically, and you probably won't believe this, it's possible that neither Brailsford, Sutton or anyone else on the management side would have known about the TUE. It sounds odd, but stranger things have happened.
You can think that's odd, but then Wiggins has a reputation for being a little eccentric and very all or nothing. Like you say, why not wait for the UKAD investigation findings?
In the context of that, the Uran thing is interesting because Freeman seemed happy to tell Lionel Birnie all about it in some detail. I don't even know if Uran spoke English at the time, some of the Colombians only speak Spanish. So technically you'd have thought Freeman shouldn't have shared those details, but I guess in the context of a race with an embedded journo, he did. Which on the surface looks wrong. That's actually why I'm surprised no-one's brought it up before.
As far as the 'questions, questions' dig. I just think it makes sense to wait for the UKAD investigation verdict rather than pre-judging things, I'm just trying to work out where you're coming from. Which we sort of seem to agree on, except that you keep digging away with your gleeful Schadenfreude. I don't get why you seem so cross about it.
In the context of that, the Uran thing is interesting because Freeman seemed happy to tell Lionel Birnie all about it in some detail. I don't even know if Uran spoke English at the time, some of the Colombians only speak Spanish. So technically you'd have thought Freeman shouldn't have shared those details, but I guess in the context of a race with an embedded journo, he did. Which on the surface looks wrong.
So, it looks like it looks like there's special rules for Wiggins after all. 😉
Or maybe the 'confidentiality' card has been overplayed? Its all a bit, well, [i]convenient[/i] for my liking.
gleeful
c'mon make your mind up! I'm way past being 'cross' about doping in cycling. Haven't you seen all my winks and smiles? I'll accept your schadenfreude comment though 😆cross
The wheels coming off the Sky Bullshit Bus is definitely a good thing (in my book).
I don't have an axe to grind here, honestI suspect you'll find the answer is medical confidentiality. Ie: if Wiggins doesn't want to disclose his medical records, the doctor isn't allowed to share them because he'd be in breach of General Medical Council guidelines and would potentially be struck off, lose his career, his reputation, his livelihood. Technically, and you probably won't believe this, it's possible that neither Brailsford, Sutton or anyone else on the management side would have known about the TUE. It sounds odd, but stranger things have happened.
... however, this has been a total disaster and coming from Sky that's suspicious as their PR machine is pretty much unparallelled. That makes me sad but if I'm honest it's not a massive surprise
I'm not sure anyone would mind if Brailsford had said "it's confidential; UCI has allowed it; wiggo wants some privacy; I actually have no idea what it was really for anyway and we don't think it contravened any no-injection policy we use because it's a one-off (err, I think, because I don't know what it was for)".
Instead we had this "master of PR" and guy who supposedly runs sky like clockwork, flailing around offering platitudes about level fields for the TUE and kack excuse after kack excuse about the mystery package.
If I was Wiggins I'd be bloody livid and I'd speak out to make sure the correct information was now provided - after all, privacy's gone, we all "know" it's for his asthma so all we've got left are details
"I was really ill in previous tours" (prove it) "and the docs suggested I shouldn't ride at that time of year and if I did my only chance was to use this overkill sledgehammer drug" (what about Giro-time, then ?)
Frankly, if they'd said "wiggo gets mild asthma but you can't win a tour with that so we're massively overtreating it to keep him 100%", I'd have swallowed it. Now I'm more falling to "we haven't cheated; we presented a case for wanting a potent steroid, UCI believed us and so we were confident that he wouldn't have asthma problems - as for the reported weight loss properties and prior doping stories ? SO what, lucky brad getting a TUE - result, hey? (and more fool the UCI)"
So Sky broke the rules there?
That would be a no, at the moment at least. And until "proof" that they did is produced this thread and every article about the issue is just hot air and talk.
Like you say, why not wait for the UKAD investigation findings?
This x1000
Dave Brailsford
At about 4:44
[i]Got no friends[/i]
Do you think he would float?
not sure, do waterwings help with asthma ? 😉
DB has turned a crisis into a disaster for sky, but he's probably livid with Wiggo for refusing to explain that TUE.
Yeah, I know he shouldn't have to discuss his confidential medical history, but once the genie is out of the bottle...
Dave Brailsford might be livid.
TUEs do raise some concerns.
Followed the link to the next 'vid' (from the above newsnight one) and its an interview with David Walsh
He thinks the whole thing stinks...
And he was definitely a sky fanboy!
[i]Nicole Cooke is the latest big name from British cycling to be asked to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's investigation into doping in sport.
The 2008 Olympic and World champion will appear before the panel of MPs by video link on Tuesday, January 24.[/i]
[i]"It was an answer that raised even more questions than we had before, especially now we know Simon Cope spent two days travelling to deliver it," wrote Cooke.
"Why did the top management deem it acceptable to use the publicly funded national women's team road manager, Simon Cope, in the role of a basic courier?" [/i]
[i]Ian Drake has stepped down as British Cycling's chief executive earlier than had been expected.[/i]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38694814
[quote=paton ]Nicole Cooke is the latest big name from British cycling to be asked to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's investigation into doping in sport.
The 2008 Olympic and World champion will appear before the panel of MPs by video link on Tuesday, January 24.
Ouch!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jan/24/nicole-cooke-mps-british-cycling-sexist-unaccountable
Cooke is probably dead right about the sexism, but seems to be over-egging it a bit about the mystery package IMO.
Cooke is probably dead right about the sexism, but seems to be over-egging it a bit about the mystery package IMO
Depends what you mean - she's echoed what a lot of the world has been saying (from varyingly informed positions) regarding the suspiciousness of the situation regarding the package and the apparent mystery surrounding its contents but she's separately been the one that raised the (imho very valid point) that it's not great that the guy being publically funded to work with the women's team was instead being used as a courier for Team Sky (regardless of what it was that he was carrying).
Sky may not have actually broken any rules but the sure have stretched the spirit of them a long long way and are IMO morally bankrupt over this.
Cooke is probably dead right about the sexism, but seems to be over-egging it a bit about the mystery package IMO.
I would disagree. The longer this goes on without a clear simple straightforward credible explanation, the more it starts to look like something dodgy may well have happened. These were not vague insinuations, which by their very nature can be impossible to definitively rebut. This was a very specific question about a single event involving named individuals and a single package, and it should have taken a few days at most for Sky/Brailsford to have got to the bottom of it and provided answers. The only valid reason for not doing so is patient confidentiality, but in that respect I would expect Bradley Wiggins and his advisors to realise that it was very much in his interest to agree to full disclosure, given the damage that could be foreseen to be done to his image and future earning capability as a sporting hero by serious suspicions of doping.
If anything, I think Nicole Cooke may have under-played the importance of the mystery package. Simon Cope would have been well aware that the Festina team was busted in 1999 precisely because the team's soigneur was stopped by police/customs at a routine border check, and was found to have large quantities of EPO in his car. Similarly on the last day of the 2002 Tour de France, the wife of the third placed rider, Raimundas Rumsas, was arrested at a border when customs similarly found EPO etc. in her car.
Given that background and the risks involved, including criminal prosection and jail under French law, I cannot understand how Simon Cope would have been prepared to carry a package through French border controls which he knew contained a pharmaceutical, without wanting to know what drug it was, and even have some documentary proof to protect himself (in case he were stopped and it turned out the drugs were not what he had been told they were). Simon Cope would have known that if he were caught with drugs, his career in cycling would have been finished in the UK (in contrast, Lance Armstrong used a bike shop owner, referred to as Motoman, to transport their drugs across borders and to hotels during the Tour, i.e. someone who was expendable/deniable if caught, and who did not have as much to lose as a team employee who might be banned from cycling for life by the UCI, and so could probably be paid to keep quiet and take the rap).
What also strikes me is that it must have been someone with inside knowledge who has blown the whistle on that package. That suggests that this particular incident was unusual and appeared suspicious at the time. The implication is that the whistleblower did not know precisely what was in the package, but was aware of its existence and the circumstances surrounding it were unusual enough to raise suspicions in the mind of someone inside BC/Sky.
Simon Cope would have been well aware that the Festina team was busted in 1999 precisely because the team's soigneur was stopped by police/customs at a routine border check, and was found to have large quantities of EPO in his car. Similarly on the last day of the 2002 Tour de France, the wife of the third placed rider, Raimundas Rumsas, was arrested at a border when customs similarly found EPO etc. in her car.Given that background and the risks involved, including criminal prosection and jail under French law, I cannot understand how Simon Cope would have been prepared to carry a package through French border controls which he knew contained a pharmaceutical, without wanting to know what drug it was, and even have some documentary proof to protect himself
If you were given a package to deliver by Sir Dave Brailsford what reason would you have to question it and therefore not show trust? "Sorry Dave, is this a banned substance I'm carrying or just a pair of pedals?" I think that would have been rather a career shortening question. I think Simon, by delivering the package, was simply doing his job and showing willing to Sky. Never a bad thing to keep an eye out for yourself when you have a career in the fickle world of cycling.
Except it wasn't his job.I think Simon, by delivering the package, was simply doing his job
Would you really carry a pharmaceutical through customs /across borders without knowing what it was. You know, when you are asked "did you pack your own case etc?"
Never a bad thing to keep an eye out for yourself when you have a career in the fickle world of cycling
If your boss asked you to carry a package through customs, but not to worry you little self what's in it, you would do it? You should be locked up for your own protection FFS!
I would disagree. The longer this goes on without a clear simple straightforward credible explanation, the more it starts to look like something dodgy may well have happened.
I think there are three likely explanations.
1. The package contained something slightly fishy that someone had a TUE for, and which they feel they can't cop to now.
2. It was tramadol.
3. They really can't remember what was in it and it was one of many similar packages.
And none of those three options really brings anything new to the Sky-bashing party. I sincerely doubt it was full of EPO.
It was his job. Someone asked him to do it. He did it. No one objected to
him doing it. BC or otherwise.
You might not see it in his job description but with the obvious sky/bc overlap I don't think it was seen as anything out of the ordinary.
likely explanations...3. They really can't remember what was in it and it was one of many similar packages.
If it were a fairly common event for the team doctor to get drugs sent over from BC/Sky HQ, and consequently they could not remember what was in one particular package out of many, then surely Brailsford would have given that explanation.
I think Simon, by delivering the package, was simply doing his job and showing willing to Sky. Never a bad thing to keep an eye out for yourself when you have a career in the fickle world of cycling.
It was not his job: he was British Cycling's national women's coach, and instead he was performing the function of a gopher.
It would look less suspicious if he was flying out with a shopping list of various items that the team had identified as urgently needed mid-Dauphine and in the run up to the Tour. Instead the trip was arranged solely to transport an unidentified pharmaceutical and nothing else.
Nicole Cooke has pointed out that Simon Cope rode with Wiggins in the Linda McCartney team, and that there is testimony from riders that PEDs were used in that team. It would make sense that if Sky were using PEDs, then any support staff involved would likely be ex-riders who had themselves been dopers. This is how cycling's Omerta has always worked: riders know that if caught doping, they can still get a contract at the end of their ban and other work in the sport when they stop riding, e.g. directeur sportif, but the price is not exposing their co-conspirators.
If someone innocent who had not been involved in doping were asked to take a package containing pharmaceuticals under these circumstances, I would expect that natural curiosity alone would mean that they would expect a bit more information about what they were carrying and why an unusual special trip was needed, and they would ask questions if that information were not provided up front. It would be very risky to ask an innocent person to take PEDs on a flight, since they would answer 'yes' when asked if they were carrying anything for someone else, resulting in the package being opened and questions about the contents. However, if an ex-doper is told without explanation to take such a package, I can imagine how there would be no need for spoken explanations: part of the deal of an ex-doper being employed is the expectation that he will do what he is told and either be actively involved in doping or at least keep his mouth shut.
The fact that Simon Cope was officially employed as the national women's coach, but much of his time instead appears to have been spent doing other things, including acting as a gopher, to the detriment of women's cycling as detailed by Cooke, suggests that Cope was not actually employed by BC for what he could do to help to improve the results of UK women cyclists.
Nicole Cooke has pointed out that Simon Cope rode with Wiggins in the Linda McCartney team, and that there is testimony from riders that PEDs were used in that team. It would make sense that if Sky were using PEDs, then any support staff involved would likely be ex-riders who had themselves been dopers.
So you're saying that Simon Cope is an ex-doper then?
Nicole Cooke has pointed out that Simon Cope rode with Wiggins in the Linda McCartney team,
Wiggins never raced for that team as he only joined for 2001 when it all fell apart, so she is being a little bit selective and I'd question her objectiveness.
In fact looking at it more, looks like Simon Cope was only on the roster in 1998, nearly a 2 whole years before Brad even signed.
If you were given a package to deliver by Sir Dave Brailsford what reason would you have to question it and therefore not show trust? "Sorry Dave, is this a banned substance I'm carrying or just a pair of pedals?" I think that would have been rather a career shortening question. I think Simon, by delivering the package, was simply doing his job and showing willing to Sky. Never a bad thing to keep an eye out for yourself when you have a career in the fickle world of cycling.
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nicole-cooke-questions-why-simon-cope-was-acting-as-sky-courier/ ]But wasn't Simon supposed to be running the women's training camp leading up to the 2011 World Champs at the time when he was transporting a sealed package containing medical supplies across national borders with no knowledge of the actual contents.[/url]
Hardly news that BC and Sky were intertwined that was how it was setup, however they were investigated years ago about it and no issues were found.
I'd question her objectiveness.
I've heard that Nicole won't/hasn't named those who offered her drugs (by one particular team) but has never named them?
If so, you have to ask why she hasn't?
& why is she so keen to stick the boot in on this occasion?
Happy to be proved wrong BTW!
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/cycling/nicole-cooke-criticises-drug-cheats-1534351 ]Link[/url]
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/73788-lizzie-armitstead-says-nicole-cooke-wrong-focus-doping-mondays-parting-shot ]Link[/url]
So you're saying that Simon Cope is an ex-doper then?
No, I am not. I am trying myself to envision a reasonable explanation for that package and all the circumstances surrounding it, in the absence of a - to me - credible explanation from Brailsford. As I said above, the fact that the whistle was blown on this particular package after so many years, suggests it was unusual. If it was a not uncommon event, I can understand how Simon Cope would not ask or be told precisely what particular drug happened to be in the package every time (although I would have expected such routine packages to have had some accompanying documentation each time which would also create an audit trail), but if it was unusual then not knowing or asking and getting on a flight to go through French border controls seems very odd, unless there was some implicit understanding ("Don't ask, don't tell") when he was told to take the package.
Nicole Cooke has highlighted that testimony from ex-riders about doping in the Linda McCartney team has not been properly investigated by UKAD. Pointing out that Simon Cope was a member of that team is no proof of anything, and it is unfair to tar someone for guilt by association. However, in the absence of a credible explanation from Brailsford, people will start to wonder. If you assume that the package did contain a PED as the starting point for a hyopthesis, then what we now know from the 1990s and the Armstrong era leads many to look for similar patterns in the Sky case. One of those patterns is the employment of people tainted by past involvement in/links to doping. Yes, for those individuals it's all purely circumstational evidence, but all the circumstantial evidence that built up around Armstrong left few people knowledgeable about the sport - apart from some diehard fans - in any doubt that he was a doper long before the USADA investigation actually brought him down.
So, I am not saying Simon Cope was a doper, but when you look at what happened and how Brailsford and Sky are responding to the accusations, it does seem increasingly more consistent with what we have learned about the use of PEDs in cycling, and increasingly less consistent with it all being totally innocent. Simon Cope's having ridden for a team which is the subject of doping allegations by ex-riders, and his acting as a Sky gopher when officially he was employed by BC as national women's coach, is not significant in itself, but it is consistent with past doping scandals. In Armstrong's case, USPS employed Pepe Marti as a coach, but it is now known that his function was to courier and administer drugs.
Frankly, what we are seeing now with Brailsford, Sky and the House of Commons committee, is reminiscent to me of when Armstrong said he was working with Ferrari. No matter how much you might try to put a positive construction on it, it was simply not consistent with being a clean rider. It stank, and the more time went on and the more that came out, the more the stench grew around Armstrong.
Pointing out that Simon Cope was a member of that team is no proof of anything, and it is unfair to tar someone for guilt by association.
But that's exactly what you did in your initial post, otherwise why even mention it?
Simon Cope's having ridden for a team which is the subject of doping allegations by ex-riders,
Look at the timelines he'd left well before the dodgy folk arrived, I think yours and Nicole Cooke's accusations are very unfair, both on Cope and Wiggins.
But that's exactly what you did in your initial post, otherwise why even mention it?
My point is that the fact that a rider rode for a team known to use doping is not proof or even evidence of that individual's guilt, but it can be part of a bigger picture where it forms part of a lot of circumstantial evidence, any one piece of which would not meet the standards of evidence required in a court to try one individual, but which collectively is damning for the Sky organisation.
So, it's not just Simon Cope's background. For example, what on earth were Sky doing employing Geert Leinders? There is no proof that he doped riders at Sky, but he was the last person you would employ as a team doctor if you want to promote yourselves as a clean team.
Brailsford seems to be throwing up a lot obfuscation, instead of getting to the bottom of the issue and giving definitive answers, e.g. incorrectly saying that Cope's flight was also arranged so that he could meet up with Emma Pooley.
So, it's not about whether Simon Cope did or did not dope, but rather that there is more and more smoke coming from Sky, and it's getting difficult to see how it's not being caused by a fire.
Look at the timelines he'd left well before the dodgy folk arrived, I think yours and Nicole Cooke's accusations are very unfair, both on Cope and Wiggins.
Accepted, I was simply going on the basis of Cooke's testimony.
Look at the timelines he'd left well before the dodgy folk arrived, I think yours and Nicole Cooke's accusations are very unfair, both on Cope and Wiggins.
Seriously?!? Ha ha. Better tell SDB to stop lying his tits off then. Of course, trying to tar Emma Pooley is fine as, well, she's only a woman.....
Hardly news that BC and Sky were intertwined that was how it was setup, however they were investigated years ago about it and no issues were found.
I think you'll find that the cope/wiggins crossover is exactly what the investigation warned against.
If it is a witch hunt, the pitchforks have been further sharpened...
Cycling Tips do seem to be taking great satisfaction in sticking the knife in at every opportunity.