Sky boss prepared to hand Wada data to prove they’re clean

Jawgap

I know this will set the mods twitching and circling like vultures, but this was on the Irish Times website......

Sky boss prepared to hand Wada data to prove they’re clean

Facing yet another barrage of doping questions after Chris Froome’s
awe-inspiring victory up the Mont Ventoux in the Tour de France on Sunday, Team Sky principal David Brailsford said he is ready to provide the
World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) with every possible data.

This year’s race has been under extra scrutiny as it is the
first Tour being staged after Lance Armstrong admitted that he had cheated his way to seven Tour titles from 1999 to 2005. Although he was stripped of all seven of the titles, the sport is still trying to salvage its image.

With athletics also under a cloud following the positive dope tests of former 100 metres record holder Asafa Powell and 2007 world 100 metres
champion Tyson Gay at the weekend, Brailsford was adamant that Froome and other riders in his team are clean and their achievements should not be
undermined.

A decent compromise, but I doubt it will end the speculation.

petethedrummer

Once again it takes public and media pressure for Sky cycling to live up to it's principles.

RobFowl

My main issue with Sky has been their lack of transparency in dealing with the media, refusing to attend a press conference (2012 TDF) unless no doping related questions were asked, the debacle re Leinders/Julich etc and the brushing off doping questions until today. If they go ahead with this it'll be a great step forward.

lennymc

it would be great allright, but, like jfk, the twin towers, roswell, jim corr, etc there will always be those who will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts.

Squidgy Black

Good. If they've nothing to hide, then there's no need for them to be secretive and evasive.

ThisRegard

Too little too late for many I'd say, the damage is done. They said they'd be open and transparent, went on to hire staff with questionable histories, pulled out at the 11th hour on a deal to embed Kimmage with them, as said above wouldn't do some press conferences and have refused to confront the doping questions and allegations and until now refused to hand over their data.

What's changed ?

Jawgap

stetyrrell wrote: »

Good. If they've nothing to hide, then there's no need for them to be secretive and evasive.

Except it's a competitive sport and if the data is a source of competitive advantage why would you publish it freely?

I think the idea of an honest broker (or preferably a team of them) is a good one - it'll be interesting to see who they get if it goes ahead, but if they pick the wrong person I reckon it'll make things worse.

Squidgy Black

Jawgap wrote: »

Except it's a competitive sport and if the data is a source of competitive advantage why would you publish it freely?

I think the idea of an honest broker (or preferably a team of them) is a good one - it'll be interesting to see who they get if it goes ahead, but if they pick the wrong person I reckon it'll make things worse.

Power outputs and blood/oxygen level data being released to the anti-doping authorities and not into the public view isn't going to affect the competition.

LeftBlank

This is all a legacy of PMcQ and co. not taking a proper stand against doping when they had the chance. There are those (myself included) who will never believe that the sport is clean and will either continue to ask questions or (as in my case) just stop watching pro-racing altogether.

godtabh

Jawgap wrote: »

Except it's a competitive sport and if the data is a source of competitive advantage why would you publish it freely?

I was going to ask the same question.

Some one asked sky to release there power figures. They wouldnt competitive advantage etc etc but yet Roche was tweeting his power figures last week. So if its ok for one why isnt it for another?

Lumen

Won't make any difference.

Suggestions like dragging Kimmage around wouldn't have made any difference either, because (a) he can't be everywhere at once, and (b) there would still be claims of out-of-comp shenanigans. What can a journo do that an official tester cannot?

Slightly more interesting is DB turning the tables...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-how-can-we-convince-you-we-arent-doping

"Why don't you [media people?] collectively have a meeting, get yourself together, get organised, and you tell me what could we do so we wouldn't have to ask these questions. Because you're asking me to come up with some sort of novel idea to satisfy you but instead of asking me get your heads together and then come to me and say this is what we would like to prove without reasonable doubt."

ThisRegard

Lumen wrote: »

"Why don't you [media people?] collectively have a meeting, get yourself together, get organised, and you tell me what could we do so we wouldn't have to ask these questions. Because you're asking me to come up with some sort of novel idea to satisfy you but instead of asking me get your heads together and then come to me and say this is what we would like to prove without reasonable doubt."

He should be a politician.

Has he ever answered any questions regarding why they hired Leinders in the first place and what they thought he could bring to the team, I think they only ever said they had no doubts about employing him ?

mcgratheoin

Media strategy from Brailsford - total red herring. He hasn't said anything of note at all in this interview.

• Firstly, he hasn't said that WADA can have the power data at all - he is encouraging "Wada to appoint an expert and they can have everything that we’ve got, have a look at everything that we’ve got" - so only if WADA make an official request for all this data from every team will it ever get handed over - there's no way that SKY would hand over theirs if nobody else does.
• Secondly, WADA won't appoint an expert to "tell the world whether they think this is credible or not." Remember the furore when the UCI likelihood of doping scores were leaked?
• What happens if the values look suspicious but are within the tolerances? Suspicious values would not be reported in public for fear of litigation and we'd hear the same "never failed a test" refrain from all of the teams - "WADA has all the data and says we're not doping"
• Brailsford said "Rather than asking us to come up with some way to prove we're innocent, why don't you collectively have a meeting and tell me what would prove it to you?" - Dave, lots of people have done that, maybe you missed it, but here it is again
  1. Explain fully the process behind hiring Leinders, whether his doping past was flagged and why it was either missed or ignored
  2. Explain fully the reason behind Sean Yates leaving the team.
  3. Explain why SKY refused to allow Paul Kimmage along having agreed that he would be embedded for the 2012 tour
  4. Detail the internal conversations that were had with and regarding Michael Barry, Sean Yates and Neil Stephens with respect to their doping past
  5. Release power data for your leading riders. Even retrospectively, show us the power data from Wiggins last year. Show us that your marginal gains in position/gearing etc means that he goes faster in the ITT than another rider for the same power

Lumen

ThisRegard wrote: »

He should be a politician.

Has he ever answered any questions regarding why they hired Leinders in the first place and what they thought he could bring to the team, I think they only ever said they had no doubts about employing him ?

There's nothing stopping this hypothetical media collective from making this (discussion of ex-employees) a requirement.

I doubt it's going to happen though. Companies never, ever discuss anything sensitive about ex-employees for good legal reasons. Try getting a meaningful employers reference from a large company, and you'll get a simple statement of employment dates and job title from HR.

Squidgy Black

You can definitely see how frustrating it would be if Froome and his Sky team mates weren't doping, but the media were constantly insinuating that he is. But sadly that's the way things are with the sport these days.

lennymc

some of the sky files are available here

death1234567

stetyrrell wrote: »

You can definitely see how frustrating it would be if Froome and his Sky team mates weren't doping, but the media were constantly insinuating that he is. But sadly that's the way things are with the sport these days.

Given the sports history I would be surprised if they found it frustrating. Any winner of the Tour De France for the foreseeable future is going to be under the microscope, regardless of who they ride for. Its just part of being a pro cyclist now and the mismangement of the sport over the last few decades.

Squidgy Black

death1234567 wrote: »

Given the sports history I would be surprised if they found it frustrating. Any winner of the Tour De France for the foreseeable future is going to be under the microscope, regardless of who they ride for.

Years of stringent training, leaving their families for weeks on ends, putting their body through pain, and then when they win they're accused of being cheats and basically disregards their efforts.

Can't see how that wouldn't be frustrating at all.

ThisRegard

It's more so how they win, as opposed to just winning.

mcgratheoin

lennymc wrote: »

some of the sky files are available here

Nothing of any great relevance though. Danny Pate in the 2012 Paris-Nice? Bernie Eisel from the Giro? Nothing from a contender on a climb

mcgratheoin

stetyrrell wrote: »

Can't see how that wouldn't be frustrating at all.

Frustrating maybe, but maybe they should take their frustration out on Geert Leinders or Contador or Valverde or any of the dopers still knocking around pro-cycling. It's their fault that nobody trusts the sport anymore, their fault that nobody believes in miracles and their fault that the media have to ask these questions. So don't shoot the messenger at interviews and go tell your DS that you want to release your power files to show everyone that you're clean.

Jawgap

stetyrrell wrote: »

Power outputs and blood/oxygen level data being released to the anti-doping authorities and not into the public view isn't going to affect the competition.

true, but I suspect whatever they release it'll never be enough.

lennymc

Jawgap wrote: »

true, but I suspect whatever they release it'll never be enough.

this.

mossym

Jawgap wrote: »

true, but I suspect whatever they release it'll never be enough.

good point. even if sky released every bit of data they had, it will inevitably just result in comments that they've just managed to find a way to hide wrong doings

those that want to believe they're cheating are going to think it no matter what they release. i don't blame them for that, but it questions what advantage sky would get for releasing the data

dogsears

Lumen wrote: »

"Why don't you [media people?] collectively have a meeting, get yourself together, get organised, and you tell me what could we do so we wouldn't have to ask these questions. Because you're asking me to come up with some sort of novel idea to satisfy you but instead of asking me get your heads together and then come to me and say this is what we would like to prove without reasonable doubt."

That, surely be to goodness, is what a tolerably competent (or interested) UCI would be doing, no?

corny

mossym wrote: »

good point. even if sky released every bit of data they had, it will inevitably just result in comments that they've just managed to find a way to hide wrong doings

those that want to believe they're cheating are going to think it no matter what they release. i don't blame them for that, but it questions what advantage sky would get for releasing the data

There's no advantage. Sure didn't Lance release some of his bio passport numbers ages ago and it backfired on him?

I'd say this all talk from Brailsford anyway. Nothing will be released.

mcgratheoin

mossym wrote: »

good point. even if sky released every bit of data they had, it will inevitably just result in comments that they've just managed to find a way to hide wrong doings

those that want to believe they're cheating are going to think it no matter what they release. i don't blame them for that, but it questions what advantage sky would get for releasing the data

I know where you're coming from, but there is a very important point to make with respect to that.

• Sky said they were going to be different. They said that they wouldn't hire anybody associated with doping. They said they would only hire British doctors who hadn't worked in cycling before. They had an entire manifesto and they said all the right things. Now they're singing off a different hymsheet. Fran Millar said before the tour that Sky wouldn't be releasing power data because other teams refuse to do so as well. They asked to be held accountable to a higher standard and they can't complain when that's exactly what happens.

hinault

If the others who were beaten yesterday on the stage to Ventoux are shown to have been doping, then the pressure will only increase on SKY.

What I witnessed yesterday was hard to fathom.

Completing 242km stage in 5hrs 48 mins is pretty remarkable for starters.
Given that we're two weeks in to the TDF to ride the stage like he did yesterday, Froome's form was nothing less than spectacular.

mistermano

http://cleanprotocol.org/the-clean-protocol/how-it-works/

hardCopy

stetyrrell wrote: »

Years of stringent training, leaving their families for weeks on ends, putting their body through pain, and then when they win they're accused of being cheats and basically disregards their efforts.

Can't see how that wouldn't be frustrating at all.

It's just one more sacrifice they have to make if they want people to believe they are clean.

At this point, there's been so much bad behaviour in the sport that any very successful cyclist will be seen by many as guilty until proven innocent.

Pain and suffering can win you a tour, even if you refuse to do a single interview you'll still have your yellow jersey.

If you want people to believe you won it clean then you don't get to pick and choose which questions you answer.

LeftBlank

stetyrrell wrote: »

Years of stringent training, leaving their families for weeks on ends, putting their body through pain, and then when they win they're accused of being cheats and basically disregards their efforts.

Can't see how that wouldn't be frustrating at all.

Sorry but have zero sympathy for them - I think all the riders were aware that they were getting into a sport which has a questionable history with regards to action on doping and that it would take generations for those questions to go away.

petethedrummer

corny wrote: »

There's no advantage. Sure didn't Lance release some of his bio passport numbers ages ago and it backfired on him?

Yes, they were dodgy and he changed the dodgiest number with no explanation (a hematocrit value IIRC). He was since found to be a doper.

Beasty

hardCopy wrote: »

At this point, there's been so much bad behaviour in the sport that any very successful cyclist will be seen by many as guilty until proven innocent.

And how does a cyclist go about proving they are innocent?

They should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

gordongekko

Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever!"

LeftBlank

gordongekko wrote: »

Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big.

The problem with this sentiment is that we've dreamt big in the past and well...look how that turned out...

mistermano

Beasty wrote: »

And how does a cyclist go about proving they are innocent?

have data independently assessed by experts....

sign up to something like this....
http://cleanprotocol.org/the-clean-protocol/how-it-works/

TinyExplosions

godtabh wrote: »

I was going to ask the same question.

Some one asked sky to release there power figures. They wouldnt competitive advantage etc etc but yet Roche was tweeting his power figures last week. So if its ok for one why isnt it for another?

It's up to individuals/teams at the end of the day -if Roche wants to post his, and his team have no problem with it, then that's fine -though as has been pointed out already, Sky have released some domestiques data for previous races, and Roche ain't a team leader, so it'd be about equivalent of Sky releasing Brajkovic's (sp??) info. Not apples with apples.

Jawgap wrote: »

true, but I suspect whatever they release it'll never be enough.

This +100 -even if they make info available to WADA, it won't be enough, if they release it to the media it won't be enough, I think to a certain extent they are in a lose lose situation, as there will always be people who don't believe em no matter what they do.

I think they had a noble idea at the start, but it quickly became evident that it maybe wasn't as practical as they thought. To be fair to them for a moment, they haven't hired any riders where there's been even a stink of doping, and yes they made some mistakes with staff members, but maybe it's hard to find people that are experiences that aren't tarnished?

From my point of view, I don't think there's a team sponsored doping program in Sky, and any of their riders that may be naughty are being so on their own, and I suspect that if their data was fishy, Brailsford would find a way to get rid of them -he's done it with the track team in the past...

mistermano

To be fair to them for a moment, they haven't hired any riders where there's been even a stink of doping?





you think DB doesn't know all about people he's hiring....

pluuuzeeh...

hardCopy

Beasty wrote: »

And how does a cyclist go about proving they are innocent?

They should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

I really don't know, they could start by dropping the righteous indignation every time somebody asks them about dope.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply in the court of public opinion, that's just tough cookies.

mossym

now that's fast modding...:)

figured this one was being watched like a hawk:)

petethedrummer

Beasty wrote: »

And how does a cyclist go about proving they are innocent?

I don't want sky to prove they are innocent, I want them to prove they are transparent. It is one of their tenets. Or am I wrong? Garmin are the most transparent team. Sky should be marginal gaining their way to the top of the transparency league but they are floundering and asking journalists for advice on how to do it.

When they needed an expert on heatstroke they hired Leinders. They seem to have got that licked so they now need to hire someone who is an expert on transparency.

ROK ON

It is too late, and by that I mean the sport in general at pro level as opposed to Sky.

This morning a leader that has to my knowledge ever had a credible accusation of doping had to defend himself.

The cycling public and media will never accept that a clean rider can win the tour. That is sad, but the simple fact remains that cycling and the teams and riders have continually to defend and justify themselves.

I know of nonother sport where we the public start with the presumption of guilt. It doesn't matter a damn if Cadel, Brad and Chris are clean beyond a shadow of a doubt - their achievements will/are being crushed under an unrelenting tide of scepticism from the cycling public.

It doesn't matter whether that's Lances fault or Pats or the history of the sport.

The sport has lost so much credibility that it IMHO cannot ever be regained.

To have to continually justify simply illustrates how much the sport has failed.

Sad.

Squidgy Black

ROK ON wrote: »

It is too late, and by that I mean the sport in general at pro level as opposed to Sky.

This morning a leader that has to my knowledge ever had a credible accusation of doping had to defend himself.

The cycling public and media will never accept that a clean rider can win the tour. That is sad, but the simple fact remains that cycling and the teams and riders have continually to defend and justify themselves.

I know of nonother sport where we the public start with the presumption of guilt. It doesn't matter a damn if Cadel, Brad and Chris are clean beyond a shadow of a doubt - their achievements will/are being crushed under an unrelenting tide of scepticism from the cycling public.

It doesn't matter whether that's Lances fault or Pats or the history of the sport.

The sport has lost so much credibility that it IMHO cannot ever be regained.

To have to continually justify simply illustrates how much the sport has failed.

Sad.

In fairness it's a similar situation with Athletics, there's always accusations if doping, for example Bolt and the recent results from Gay which proved the accusations against him.

petethedrummer

petethedrummer wrote: »

It is one of their tenets. Or am I wrong?

I'm not wrong see 3mins 30secs.

http://www.itv.com/tourdefrance/features/millar-brailsford-kimmage-discuss-doping-in-cycling-tour-de-france-itv-feature/


Brailsford is absolutely useless at PR. A disaster in fact.

mistermano

ROK ON wrote: »

It is too late, and by that I mean the sport in general at pro level as opposed to Sky.

This morning a leader that has to my knowledge ever had a credible accusation of doping had to defend himself.

The cycling public and media will never accept that a clean rider can win the tour. That is sad, but the simple fact remains that cycling and the teams and riders have continually to defend and justify themselves.

I know of nonother sport where we the public start with the presumption of guilt. It doesn't matter a damn if Cadel, Brad and Chris are clean beyond a shadow of a doubt - their achievements will/are being crushed under an unrelenting tide of scepticism from the cycling public.

It doesn't matter whether that's Lances fault or Pats or the history of the sport.

The sport has lost so much credibility that it IMHO cannot ever be regained.

To have to continually justify simply illustrates how much the sport has failed.

Sad.

you have to make an effort to be transparent

there are ways

passing tests isn't enough for pro cycling going forward

Chips Lovell

Everyone's on a hiding to nothing. On one side you've people who've been burned so often in the past that any success is seen as suspicious. On the other you've got people who're being asked to prove a negative.

petethedrummer

TinyExplosions wrote: »

From my point of view, I don't think there's a team sponsored doping program in Sky, and any of their riders that may be naughty are being so on their own, and I suspect that if their data was fishy, Brailsford would find a way to get rid of them -he's done it with the track team in the past...

He didn't notice Rob Hayles' naturally high hematocrit in advance of a positive test. And he didn't notice anything fishy about David Millar back in the day.

I have a naturally high hematocrit. I know this about myself and I'm a rubbish A4 rider. Brailsford is obviously not the most observant.

corny

TinyExplosions wrote: »

This +100 -even if they make info available to WADA, it won't be enough, if they release it to the media it won't be enough, I think to a certain extent they are in a lose lose situation, as there will always be people who don't believe em no matter what they do.

You make that sound unreasonable!

Surely, regardless of how this pans out, its reasonable to suspect SKY will not release anything incriminating and so what they share can never truly dispel the accusations.

They are in a lose lose situation but you're not a creationist if you treat everything they release as fluff.

I couldn't care less what they release tbh. They've proven to me they're not to be trusted.

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

He didn't notice Rob Hayles' naturally high hematocrit in advance of a positive test

I'm less bothered by him "noticing" it or not and more bothered about what they did afterwards - Hayles was quietly dropped from the 2008 Olympic squad, after being fully backed by DB (natural variations in plasma volume etc).

Echoes of Sky. Back people in public and then show them the door.

ROK ON

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Everyone's on a hiding to nothing. On one side you've people who've been burned so often in the past that any success is seen as suspicious. On the other you've got people who're being asked to prove a negative.

Thats the point entirely.

Despite accusations of cheating in other sports (athletics, rugby, soccer tennis) the sport itself is not called into question. Pro cycling is always mentioned in the general media and the cycling media in the same paragraph as doping. The past has been uteerly deserved, but it IMO robs the sport of a credible future.

If we never knew that Lance, Pantani, Ulricj, Anquetil, Kelly, Merck, Coppi, SImpson etc etc doped would we be as suspicios now. Dont think that cheating at some level (match fixing etc) hasnt existed for a long time in other sports. It is just that cyclings cheating has existed and been part of the fabric of the sport since its inception. Thats a hard history to was away.

Froome is being questioned only because of suspicion and entirely ciccumstantial evidence. For Froome insert the Grand Tour winner for past five years and next five years - would the record be any different. I dont think so.

The sport will continue, but those that continue to participate at the highest level must at some stage simply do away with an investment in training by showing all data in a bid to secure transparency or they must develop a very thick skin (that is also financially secure & independent) and simply refuse to engage with stakeholders on the continual doping merrygoround.

I am beyond caring. I am regulalry left breathless by the efforts of Contador. Is this any different than those that shouted for Pantani, Vino Lance and all of the other unrepentant cheaters. I have decided that it doesnt matter to me whether these guys are clean or dirty. I want them to ride with panache in a reasonably credibke fashion.
I dont think thats too much to ask. They are entertainers after all.

Brian?

Beasty wrote: »

And how does a cyclist go about proving they are innocent?

They should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

The burden of proof is most certainly on the accuser.

Let's be honest though, there are questions to be asked. Christopher Froome just completed Mt Ventoux in the quickest time ever.

Quicker than Armstrong, Pantani etc. from when EPO was everywhere in the peloton.

This does not mean Froome is doping and it does not mean that Sky have a team doping policy. It does however mean there are questions to be answered. How can a clean rider beat the times of the biggest dopers ever? It's very hard for a lot of people to believe so Sky need to produce the data to support it.

I for one hope they are clean and Froome is greatest climber and TT combo in the history of cycling. No sarcasm. I will be gutted if he's dirty.