Are cracks appearing in the Walsh / Sky love affair?

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Well, you could always stop using them...

Can't recall using them

Perhaps an apology of sorts - it's not just you, and my differences with you are mainly of a subtley different bent. However, here's what I seem to see from yourself and others

Person 1 : Sky seem to be handling situation X OK, what more would you expect ?
Person 2 : If Sky were as clean and ethical as they pretend/there was nothing to hide, they would do Y in response to X (where X is whatever the person that person deems 'acceptable' to them)
Person 2 : Sky did not do X, therefore there is something to hide/they're unethical etc

Doesn't sound familiar at all when that team comes up in conversation ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

However, here's what I seem to see from yourself and others

Person 1 : Sky seem to be handling situation X OK, what more would you expect ?
Person 2 : If Sky were as clean and ethical as they pretend/there was nothing to hide, they would do Y in response to X (where X is whatever the person that person deems 'acceptable' to them)
Person 2 : Sky did not do X, therefore there is something to hide/they're unethical etc

Blimey, you've lost me there!

Seriously ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

Here's a simple example of Sky BS - you might call it a 'straw man' - but to me it's quite clear:

Person DB said: they would only hire British docs from outside of pro road cycling to avoid links to doping.
Person DB then hires a foreign doc who was previously employed by a cycling team with a doping problem.

If you want a 'straw man' check out Person DB's justification for hiring dodgy foreign doc!

I don't make this Bullsh!t up you know - Person DB is an expert at it!

Brailsford said, when setting up Sky that Sky needed two additional doctors and, at that time, he wanted them to be British doctors without links to cycling to try and ensure no linkage to cyclings doping scandals. What he didn't say is "i'll never hire doctors from inside cycling". So you have created a slightly different version of his stance, used that as a foundation of their behaviour, countered it by their hiring of Leinders (that was at best and 'interesting' PR move by them, agreed) and thus conclude they're full of BS. Unreasonable precise ?

daddyELVIS wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

....and thus conclude they're full of BS. Unreasonable precise ?

Sorry - meant 'précis' not 'precise'.

daddyELVIS wrote:

That's one example, there are more, but I can't be bothered to list everything. If you're so interested, you can find it.

Well, see, that's rather the point. What I posted was a straw-man argument - yours, as far as I can see. Interesting that you seem to agree with it...

daddyELVIS wrote:

However, please do check exactly what DB said when justifying the hiring of Leinders - any ounce of respect I might have had for him was lost right there!

I have been doing just that. Sounds like naivety and a lack of planning to me (oh the irony). By Skys own admission, the previous decision to hire British, non-cycling doctors would have left them ill-prepared, if continued, if someone on their medical staff went away - as happened when their soigneur died suddenly. They went with someone (part of 4 part-time positions as I understand it) with previous experience, in particular with riders in adverse and extreme conditions.

Sky also began to realise that you can't always get what you dream of... (Brailsford 2011)

"We've got to admit now there is a difference between having a dream, an aspirational goal, and specific targets. So what we need to do with individuals is to allow them to work towards specific targets – so it is something they can control.

"If I could wind the clock back we would have a much more humble arrival into professional road cycling. There was a real element of hype and I'll hold my hand up and admit I got caught up in that. We would tone that down if we could start all over again."

That's fairly open to me. When things started crawling out of the woodwork, they spoke with Leinders and investigated, BR had this to say at the time (road.cc)

"I categorically, 100 per cent say that there's no risk of anything untoward happening in this team since he [Leinders] has been with us," insisted Brailsford, quoted on Telegraph.co.uk.

"I've seen nothing and neither have the full-time medics. I'd put my life on it,” he continued, adding: “"He's done nothing wrong here, but we have a reputational risk.

"This is not about doping. We're pushing the guys to their limits, so we need to look after them. It's about genuine medical practice," he maintained.

Brailsford went on: "We have had discussions with him and once we've established the facts, we will take the appropriate action."

They investigated, and terminated his contract. Afterwards Brailsford said of the matter

“The whole thing is my responsibility,” said Brailsford. “I will take that squarely on the chin. It’s something I regret, it’s a mistake.”

“I should not have done it. I made an error of judgment.”

None of that comes across as a straw-man. Stupid ? Yes. Predictable ? Probably. Evil, plotting, scheming, cheats ? Probably not. People trying very hard to win whilst doing making things marginally better in cycling ? I'd say so, but many wouldn't. It's also incredibly difficult to prove you're not doing something, especially in a competitive sport. Up to you - I like to think i'm open minded on this either way and I think where I have an issue with some, such as yourself, is that you've got yourself in a position where you can't reasonably change your mind no matter what happens. I really hope i'm actually wrong on that.

crazy-legs wrote:

Pretty much everyone was doping in pre-Sky days hence why it was so difficult for Sky to employ a known clean team.

True, but they employed people complicit to USPS/LA.

crazy-legs wrote:

They did the best they could using the available information as to who was clean - none of the people involved at the time the team was formed had ever been found guilty of any crime.

See above, but they didn't seem to look in backgrounds that much, it just seemed like they asked 'Ever doped?' got a 'No' and left it at that, I'm not entirley implying guilt by association, but if they were keen on a clean (as possible) team, you'd avoid guys linked to people who were dirty.

crazy-legs wrote:

And when they admitted their past they were fired (or they retired then admitted it, end result is the same) unlike all the other teams where, as I said earlier, numerous riders and/or admin staff linked to doping in the past are still on the roster.

I'm not saying Sky are the only ones (many people do though) but when they came into the sport spouting the 'no dopers' 'clean team' lines, then they should have really done some home work and really erred on the side of caution, someone connected to USPS/Festina/Ferrai/Puerto and so on should have been an instant no.

crazy-legs wrote:

And you're all up in arms about Sky employing one doctor for a few months or about an alleged misuse of a TUE? Christ, get over yourselves!
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2014/06/wada-says-uci-followed-rules-in-granti...

Nothing to see here, move along.

Juillich, Barry, Rogers, Yates.
All Sky and have admitted, or been heavily linked to doping (Ferrari Clients etc), in pre sky days.

daddyELVIS wrote:

stumps wrote:

You feel the need to comment but with nothing constructive to counter what I've said - probably because I've stated the truth. I don't expect you to accept that as your rose-tinted specs are more lopsided than mine!

errr - every comment you've ever written about Sky is all just pie in the sky without fact or foundation and as i said is just 2+2 = 10. I get it you dont like Sky but there's no need to lie just to get your point over because all it does is make you look rather silly and your inability to include other pro teams in the arguement who, like other posters have stated, are still more heavily involved in drug users both past and present is quite sad.

Gkam84 wrote:

You still don't get it. THEY CANNOT just hand it off to one person....they are responsible to WADA and the code says they HAVE to decide it by committee.....a committee cannot hand it to one person either.

I don't care what you come back with that the UCI reg's say they can and cannot do. UCI are members of the WADA code and therefore WADA rules and reg's apply, not UCI sub codes they have put in place themselves. That is not how it works.

WADA code has to be followed to the letter.

For the rider, the UCI regs apply because a rider who is a member of the UCI Registered Testing Pool must have a UCI TUE regardless of any other exemptions from any other Anti-Doping Agency. From the WADA Code Section 4.4 Therapeutic Use

Athletes who have been identified as included in their International Federation’s Registered Testing Pool may only obtain therapeutic use exemptions in accordance with the rules of their International Federation.

(my emphasis). However, further in that section

WADA, on its own initiative, may review at any time the granting of a therapeutic use exemption to any International-Level Athlete or national-level Athlete who is included in his or her National Anti-Doping Organization's Registered Testing Pool.

So the TUE for Froome (who is a member of the UCI RTP) can only come from the UCI and must be issued in line with the UCI rules. That those regulations may be scrutinised by WADA for compliance is another matter which does not mean the immediate nulling of the TUE. That can happen as WADA "through its TUE Committee (TUEC), has the right to monitor and review any TUE granted by a federation or anti-doping organization and, pursuant to such review, to reverse any decision." (WADA ISTUE). That has not happened, and the only murmurs heard regarding WADA are that there is no problem with this grant on the medical side (last four words added for clarity).

Further, in the ISTUE WADA state

An application for a TUE will be reviewed by a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).

This is inline with the UCI regulations, as the TUE request should be dealt with initially by the UCI TEUC. From there on, the actual decision about an individual case is made by one or more of members of the UCI TEUC. WADA says nothing about this, one way or another, so it may be that the UCI are complying with the letter of the Code but not the spirit (perhaps that is what was meant by WADA having concerns about the UCI protocol, who knows).

The entirety of the WADA Code related to non-WADA TUECs is below

6.1 TUECs should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in
the care and treatment of Athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine. In order to ensure a level of independence of decisions,
the majority of the members of any TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest
or political responsibility in the Anti-Doping Organization. All members of a TUEC will sign a conflict of interest agreement. In applications involving Athletes with disabilities, at least one TUEC member shall possess specific experience with the care and treatment of Athletes with disabilities.

6.2 TUECs may seek whatever medical or scientific expertise they deem
appropriate in reviewing the circumstances of any application for a TUE.

...and please note from the earlier WADA directive in the Code that the TUEC is only required for the review of the TUE and not the decision.

Gkam - i'm totally in agreement that the idea that a single person is apparently in charge of the TUEs in the UCI is ridiculous and that, at best, the UCI is probably not complying with the spirit of the Code. I hope that is what is being addressed in the new UCI regs and the 2015 Code update. However, reading through the letter of the law (UCI regulations, WADA Code and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions) it seems

1. The TUE for Froome could only come from the UCI
2. The TUE had to be issued compliant with the UCIs regulations.
3. The UCI regulations have no material conflict with the WADA Code or the ISTUE.
4. Compliance with the ISTUE is (according to WADA) sufficient to assure the legality of the TUE.

Or whatever.

Gkam84 wrote:

A committee cannot just pick and choose who makes a decision though. I MUST be made by at least 3 members and if WADA had their way, it would require every decision to be made by a 6 person committee, 1 chairman and 5 members.

No. Read the regs, that is precisely what they can do. The committee must have at least 3 members. Read sections 40-45 of the UCI anti-doping regs, particularly 45.

(amended post) Here
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTY2NjU&ObjTypeCo...
(end amendment)

Gkam84 wrote:

So Froomes TUE was illegal and wrong,

..follows only if your reading of the UCI regs is correct.

Gkam84 wrote:

his results should be stripped as his TUE was against the WADA code and therefore he was using a banned substance without the proper authority.....

WADA signed off on it - then questioned the procedure (probably rightly) and it's being amended. None of the necessitates the illegality of the TUE.

Gkam84 wrote:

Ok, so have the UCI given two different wordings just to put doubt out there. If you see the opening paragraph, it makes out there the UCI are saying that decisions from now on will go through A committee.....meaning there wasn't one in the first place to go through.

"The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's world governing body, has told Telegraph Sport that it is to introduce an immediate change to its Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) process, ensuring that from now on all decisions pass through a committee."

Then they say

"As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee."

Suggesting the have a committee, which if they had one, they would have been using it already for decisions.....they haven't and they don't have one

I'll do this once more then i'm off - i'm rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon... they seem to be talking about the decisions going through a committee. At the moment the UCI regs say there should be a committee, and when a request for a TUE comes through, that committee chooses one or more people from that committee - with or without expert help from outside - to make the actual decision. The mention of 'requests' going through the/a committee was made by the author in an apparent mis-quote of the UCI statement.

Agreed it's wishy washy and unclear whether there was actually a committee although - like farrell - I personally find it slightly more believable that there was one, e.g. a standing committee that basically shovelled everything through to the MD.. but that's guesswork. As is most of the stuff about this unfortunately. The UCI may be a bunch of senseless, inbred, bribe-taking morons but frankly nothing about this particular decision i've seen seems to indicate it's some sort of deep, dark plot. YMMV.

fukawitribe wrote:

I'll do this once more then i'm off - i'm rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon...

Someone is WRONG on the internet!

notfastenough wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

I'll do this once more then i'm off - i'm rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon...

Someone is WRONG on the internet!

Oh yesh

(Alas I was that man last night)