- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Sean Yates in 2011 (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 by brassyn:Flickr)Unfair that Armstrong took the brunt of the blame, says Sean Yates
Former Discovery Channel and Team Sky sporting director, Sean Yates, has told the BBC that Lance Armstrong was ‘a big figure that they hunted down’ and says he feels it is unfair that Armstrong has taken ‘the brunt of the publicity and the brunt of the blame’.
In 2013, Armstrong himself claimed: “I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story.” Yates, a team-mate of Armstrong’s at Motorola and also a member of the American’s Discovery management team from 2005, appears to have some sympathy with this point of view.
“Lance was a big figure that they hunted down, along with others obviously, but he was the stand-out figure and he took the brunt of the publicity and the brunt of the blame – unfairly in my opinion. Ultimately people will make up their own minds somewhere down the road, but that may be a few years to come yet.”
Yates was one of three high profile members of Team Sky to leave the Tour de France-winning team after their zero-tolerance approach to doping was restated in the wake of the Lance Armstrong affair in 2012. While Bobby Julich and Steven De Jongh left after admitting doping during the late 1990s, Yates said he was retiring from cycling for personal and health reasons.
Yates has denied any knowledge of the systematic doping detailed in the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s (USADA) 2012 reasoned decision. However, while he was not named in the evidence, he does appear in a photo listed as Exhibit A with Frankie Andreu’s affidavit in which he has his arm around the shoulders of "Motoman" (face redacted) outside the Stars 'n' Bikes bike shop.
Yates, Julich and de Jongh have since been reunited at Oleg Tinkov’s Tinkoff-Saxo team. Yates is working as one of the team's sport directors, the same role he performed in 2012 at Sky as part of a team that secured Sir Bradley Wiggins’ Tour de France victory. He is expected to return to the Tour de France in 2015 to aid Alberto Contador’s bid.
Yates describes both Contador and Team Sky’s Chris Froome as being ‘a level above’ last year’s winner, Vincenzo Nibali. “Hopefully they both stay on their bikes this year and it’s a good clean fight, and may the best man win.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- David9694 6 hours 21 min ago
I hope you're all checking your insurance policies, helmets, test certificates and road tax, it's the 2024 round-up...
- check12 8 hours 1 min ago
200 people out of a close by population of how many? Just build it and stop being a wuss
- Spangly Shiny 9 hours 34 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 11 hours 55 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 12 hours 43 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 14 hours 22 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 15 hours 29 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- LongitudeLatitude 16 hours 20 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 16 hours 47 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
- Mike Holmes 16 hours 51 min ago
A trip down memory lane (or street) for me - Harry Quinn's bike shop was at the top of our Street and I used to spend time staring at the bikes and...
Add new comment
39 comments
Kadinski. Head out of the sand. I know that the truth might hurt but blindly accepting what you are fed doesn't do you any favours.
Crazy - source pls? Ideally independent... genuinely interested, I spent half my career in cancer research and nobody I know was aware of this.
Nearly every cent?
I would suggest that your definition of nearly is at odds with the everyday usage of the word, and that more research into the criticisms of the Livestrong organisation would be of value to you.
I kind of see where he's coming from, but Armstrong was a dick to everyone, a complete and utter dick, so he got what he deserved.
Merckx tested positive a few times I think. He was kicked out of the Giro most famously. He always blamed the doctors for giving him these things, never accepted it was his responsibility.
Big money in the sport is ruining it. You never had doping scandals when there was no money in cycling. Like in the days of Tom Simpson...
Who we British seem to like to revere as a great cyclist, and build monuments to and write books about, but who actually managed to dope himself to death. Something Lance couldn't even manage!
hsiaolc: While the vast majority of those who made it in the pro peloton and could stay there were doing it, the problem is they weren't all doing it.
There were those who didn't make it, because they didn't dope. There were those who got to the pro peloton but were kicked out because they wouldn't co-operate with doping.
Just to give one name, Graeme Obree. Possibly the only world-class athlete from that era that I would still find credible. When got a pro contract, he asked why money was being deducted from his payments for a "medicine" pot and that he didn't agree with it. He was soon out of a job.
Read a bit more about what Livestrong did and do before trotting that out. Also maybe look how Lance dealt with some cancer sufferers who had issues with the stupid yellow wristbands. The man was about self aggrandisement that's all.
Yates and his ilk need to crawl off somewhere and leave cycling alone. Their continued presence in the sport and in the press is something the UCI and the press need to think hard about (I include road.cc here)
I've read plenty thanks. The guy may be a prick, but it doesn't change the fact that his motivation was to beat cancer.
He's much worse than a "prick" and I disagree that beating cancer (can you really "beat" it?) was his motivation. His recovery from cancer was used as a convenient shield for all sorts of inexcusable behaviour, even during his comeback in 2009.
I'm not saying he did no good at all but IMHO the good he did was far, far outweighed by the many unpleasant and vindictive things he did and said.
Livestrong is not a lily-white organisation, you don't have to dig far to find plenty of dirt.
Yates is entitled to his opinion but that's all it is. And I can't help think of the phrase "you are judged by the company you keep".
What is Yates smoking? Armstrong acted like some mafia chief, he systematically created a web of contacts that sought to destroy anyone who challenged his hegemony. He got what he deserved. Yes the UCI, whether through incompetence or corruption allowed this to fester like a weeping wound, but please spare me the tears for Armstrong and the way he trumped other dopers by doing it on a far more professional level.
If Yates has solid information on others who have doped and remain unsanctioned then I think it is good that he is willing to testify and equal out the punishments. Oh wait.....
The problem Armstrong has got is that he had the chance to talk to Travis Tygart and chose not to. The riders with lesser bans all sat down and disclosed the truth, Lance could have done that and got a much lesser ban.
USADA were after the faciliators, not the riders that came clean.
He's had his chance and decided not to take it.
I'm surprised Sean is back with Tinkoff, didn't he leave Sky rapidly to get out of the game and spend more time with his family?
IIRC he passed up more than one chance to come clean.
There was also a great deal more to what Armstrong did wrong than merely that he used EPO.
My thoughts on Yates's comments: "well, he would say that, wouldn't he". Regardless of whether/how much he doped himself he's guilty by association with the biggest, baddest doper of them all, but he won't grass. He left Sky because of the doping questions.
He won't care a fig for what we think. As long as unscrupulous people wave the cash and ask no questions people like Sean Yates and Michael Rogers will have a job. It prompts me to doubt that pro cycling is any cleaner now than 10 years ago.
I don't know where this 'disproportionate' punishment comes from? He undertook doping and all the organisation it entails on a scale disproportionate to anything earlier (inc. Festina); he threatened innocent people with a power/venom disproportionate to what they possessed; he won the tour out of proportion to what other (better) pros had done (better than Merckx' 5? No) and he probably regrets NOT hiring Landis disproportionately more than his regret at having doped in the first place. He should be kept at a proportionally greater distance by journos than his popularity deserves.
Did Merckx ever test positive, was he clean through his 5 victories?
The so old, tired and played out Fan boy rants...he's a liar, he's a cheat, he broke my heart!
He did not act like an a**hole. He lied, cheated and used his influence, wealth and friendship with powerful people to destroy other peoples careers. So no bleating now from the bleeding hearts please. Caught so take it on the chin.
If you step back and look at the bigger picture, it does appear that Armstrong has been disproportionately punished compared to other known dopers in cycling. Which doesn't necessarily mean Armstrong was punished too harshly - it could equally be argued the other dopers should have received greater punishments. But rather than address this uncomfortable disparity, it's much easier for most folks to look at what Armstrong said and did off the bike and conclude that he deserved what he got because he acted like an a**hole. People feel comfortable about the disparity because they don't like Armstrong's personality.
Armstrong, as a moral human being is a disaster. Was he brave rider? Yes, but the responsibility for all his actions lie solely with himself. He just generates background noise these days, aided by his old mates.
What they don't seem to understand is how their careers are tainted by their continual defence of Armstrong.
Who's heart really bleeds for Armstrong, anyway?
not really like with that and other things is shows the establishment covering up the deeds of those who make a lot of cash/fame for them.
That is at the end what Armstrong was about, his only motivation in life was cash.
That's laughable!
Who are the "establishment" that Lance made so wealthy/famous? Was Sean Yates on the payroll?
And Lance's sole motivation was cash; so he entered local swim meets, sportives etc. Must've been some excellent prize money on offer.
If you see beyond a 2D cartoon character, then logically, Yates is correct; Lance Armstrong has been disproportionately punished compared to others. I'm not saying that his lifetime ban is wrong, just that there are others (Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis et al) that should have been given more than a slap on the wrist and permission to go off and write books that 'reveal all'. Landis even had a public fund raising money for his defense and now stands to, potentially, make millions from his whistleblower case. Wonder if he'll be reimbursing his former supporters?
That's patently not true. His motivation was to win.
so when he complains of losing contracts and stuff. He may have started determined to win but money took over for him and UCI too quickly. To keep the contracts with Nike and Oakley etc rolling in he had to keep on winning and that led him to dope and get around the rules even more.
He was doping years before he had any contracts with nike et al. Only a fool would think that he wasn't doping before his cancer, years before his first TDF win, and years and years before any big money contracts.
Only a fool would think that only he is doping from the whole cycling world.
All of them were doing it so they should all be punished. Justice. Not just Lance.
Easy.
what was he winning with Livestrong? other than cash and a nice moral shield to hide behind?
His motivation was to beat cancer.
No, no it wasn't. Livestrong *never* existed to beat cancer. It helped some people who had cancer cope with their illness and made some people 'aware' of cancer. AFAIK no research or research funding came out of it.
They used to give grants to research although they started phasing that out from about 2005 then from 2010 onwards stopped giving research grants.
Bear in mind that the American healthcare system is completely different to the UK. Over here, anything like "raising awareness" would be a Government ad campaign but over there has to be privately funded.
But you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good old Lance bashing...
That is just not true. Note that I'm not saying I disagree with you - i"m saying that what you have written is factually wrong.
It was started by Lance Armstrong with the purpose of beating cancer. Nearly *every cent* went into funding cancer research projects. I think it was about 2003 or 2004 when they began to phase out the research and morph into a 'supportive' role - which is all it does nowadays.
Pages