So Bobby is thrown overboard but what about Sean?

I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession

atriage wrote:
I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession

Sounds like an abortion.

atriage wrote:

I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession

This

"nor did I witness any systematic doping within the team"

says to me that he did witness doping by individuals or groups, just not
sanctioned by the organization.

-S-

On 26/10/2012 14:54, Steve Freides wrote:
atriage wrote:

I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession

This

"nor did I witness any systematic doping within the team"

says to me that he did witness doping by individuals or groups, just not
sanctioned by the organization.

Yeah he witnessed plenty of doping and I'd be utterly astonished if he
was clean himself, still he ain't gonna 'fessup like Julich so he's in
the clear with Sky for now. Personally I think Sky's "nobody who's ever
doped shall work here" policy is silly given that all they can really
mean is "nobody who's ever been busted". No doubt Julich knew he'd been
fingered and that the truth will out, Yates's calculation seems to be
that there won't be anything unearthed against him. Listening to a
Brailsford interview on the radio the other day I was left with the
profound feeling that Sky's anti-doping stance is still largely a public
relations exercise a la UCI. Shame for Julich, I still think he's one of
the gooder guys really (given that there were almost no actual good guys
in the clean sense).

Steve wrote:
atriage wrote:
I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession
This
"nor did I witness any systematic doping within the team"
says to me that he did witness doping by individuals or groups, just not
sanctioned by the organization.

The Sky bloodbath continues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...continues.html

--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

On 28/10/2012 01:32, atriage wrote:


Steve wrote:
atriage wrote:
I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession
This
"nor did I witness any systematic doping within the team"
says to me that he did witness doping by individuals or groups, just
not sanctioned by the organization.

The Sky bloodbath continues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...continues.html

There is very much a feeling that anyone who had anything to do with
Armstrong must be tainted. This despite the fact that (I guess I cant
be bothered to check it out) riders from most teams have been found out
in recent years which indicates what many people suspect - that the
whole barrel is rotten, not just a few yankee apples.

There is also the fact that one might be better off keeping somebody who
admits to having doped/administered doping than somebody who tells you
they haven't. The publicity of one of their team being "outed" as a
doper would surely be more damaging than the admittance that some old
hippy domestique did.

I think the whole Sky "you can't work for us if you doped" thing is
another indication of just how out of touch with its own reality pro
cycling has become. They'd like to think they can do it, but they'll
never be able to prove it...

UD

Uncle wrote:
On 28/10/2012 01:32, atriage wrote:


Steve wrote:
atriage wrote:
I think Dave might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/excl...ing-confession
This
"nor did I witness any systematic doping within the team"
says to me that he did witness doping by individuals or groups, just
not sanctioned by the organization.

The Sky bloodbath continues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...continues.html
There is very much a feeling that anyone who had anything to do with
Armstrong must be tainted. This despite the fact that (I guess I cant
be bothered to check it out) riders from most teams have been found out
in recent years which indicates what many people suspect - that the
whole barrel is rotten, not just a few yankee apples.
There is also the fact that one might be better off keeping somebody who
admits to having doped/administered doping than somebody who tells you
they haven't. The publicity of one of their team being "outed" as a
doper would surely be more damaging than the admittance that some old
hippy domestique did.
I think the whole Sky "you can't work for us if you doped" thing is
another indication of just how out of touch with its own reality pro
cycling has become.

Yeah very true and Dave has yet to 'interview' Wiggo, suppose he were to confess to once using one of them there 'make you thin' drugs, would Dave still stand by his principles? He could end up being the only remaining Sky team member. He better get out training.


--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk