- 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
Bradley Wiggins at London 2012 Opening Ceremony.PNGFrom zero tolerance to zero credibility - Team Sky and Sir Dave Brailsford under attack
In Summer 2012, Team Sky and British Cycling were on top of the cycling world. Bradley Wiggins, five days on from becoming the first British rider to win the Tour de France, was given the honour of ringing the bell to get the opening ceremony of the London Olympic Games under way.
In the velodrome at the Olympic Park in Stratford, Team GB dominated, as they had done in Beijing four years earlier, with Dave Brailsford - juggling at the time his role as Great Britain Cycling Team performance director with being Team Sky principal - the architect of those successes on the road and on the track.
Both would be knighted in the New Year's Honours at the end of the year, but now their reputations seem tarnished beyond repair - and while Wiggins may have retired, Brailsford remains at the helm of Team Sky but there are calls for him to resign.
When Team Sky was launched at the start of 2010, with Wiggins its prize catch, Brailsford's stated aim of winning the Tour de France clean with a British rider within five years attracted a mixture of mirth and incredulity.
Within three years, however, two had stood on the top step of the podium on the Champs-Elysees wearing the yellow jersey that in 2012 marked Wiggins and 12 months later Chris Froome as the winners of cycling's biggest race.
But now, Brailsford's much-repeated mantra of zero tolerance has the most hollow of rings to it.
Even if it cannot be proved that Team Sky broke any specific anti-doping rules, it's clear now that at the very least they pushed right up against the limits of what is legally allowed and in so doing entered a grey area that means they can no longer claim the moral high ground.
It's not often that the Mail on Sunday and The Observer agree on something.
But in separate opinion pieces published today, two of the most respected journalists in sport, the Mail's Oliver Holt and William Fotheringham of the Observer, both said Brailsford should go.
The background, of course, is the controversy over the Jiffy Bag delivered to Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphine.
That, and the issuing of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to Wiggins for otherwise banned drugs ahead of key races including that 2012 Tour de France.
In a scathing piece in the Mail on Sunday, Holt said: "Caught out in lie after lie, wriggling like a fish on a hook, it has become obvious now that the entire concept of Team Sky was a giant masquerade, a grand illusion, indulged by cheerleaders for too long and run by hollow men.
"I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's meant to. Team Sky took a lot of us for suckers. The protestations of their general manager, Sir Dave Brailsford, that this was to be a team with spotless competitive ethics, determined to win the right way, seems bitterly funny now."
It's hard to disagree with him.
Yes, some might point out that he isn't a specialist cycling writer, or they might take issue with him due to the newspaper he writes for, but he is far from the only journalist casting doubt on Sky's ethos.
Veteran cycling journalist William Fotheringham, the author of some of the best books on the sport, didn't pull any punches in his piece in the Observer today.
He asked: "When does a situation become sufficiently untenable that to remain in post is counterproductive? When to leave and how to do it so that one’s departure does as little damage as possible?"
Fotheringham continued: "I imagine – I would hope – that Sir Dave Brailsford is thinking along those lines at present, reflecting on his position in the wake of Wednesday’s horror show in a House of Commons committee room, pondering the background and trying to anticipate what the future might hold as UK Anti-Doping continues its inquiry into the putative contents of the most infamous Jiffy bag in British sport."
Describing Brailsford's position as "untenable," he added: "If he is not persuaded, it is time for Sky’s equivalent of the men in suits to step in" - and sack him.
Quite how much damage is being done to the Sky brand with the continuing revelations that cast a shadow over its successes, and what implications that might have for future financial support of the venture, is a chapter yet to be written in its story.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- levestane 3 sec ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
- Sredlums 5 min 33 sec ago
You'd think that, but dirt jump bikes usually only have a rear brake, and they are very much not riding on flat ground, nor are they riding very...
- CitizenSmith 26 min 17 sec ago
There seems to be no support for TOO) now - their email and website are defunct. They are inactive on Facebook. Aftter less than a year the rails...
- Pub bike 32 min 1 sec ago
"Bike theft hotspot"? This is just like having a sign that says "Police don't bother enforcing the law in this area. Thieves you have free reign!"
- Laz 1 hour 23 min ago
I used to daily 1hr sufferfests on indoor rollers, I drank a fair bit of water before during, and after- I noticed my sweat wasnt stinging in my...
- matthewn5 1 hour 56 min ago
I did the four windows on my Victorian flat. I replaced the parting beads (between the panes) and the staff moulds with new timber ones that have a...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 25 min ago
Well, I don't have any insight into how all consuming being a professional cyclist is and so how much you have to put your faith in your advisors,...
- Hirsute 5 hours 6 min ago
In the comments "Was it due to icy conditions? "
- slc 7 hours 47 min ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
Add new comment
38 comments
Ha. Indeed. I'd say you can extend the analogy. Namely, get on any motorway and you'll find huge numbers doing 70+, hoping they won't get caught...
Human nature?
The point is , repeated lying and diversion to try and cover what really happened. it's hugely convenient that all these records seem to be missing, don't you think? And nobody seemed to think it necessary to ask any questions?
Taking a TUE under legitimate circumstances is within the rules. Using a TUE when it isn't required, in order to administer an otherwise banned substance is not within the rules. Especially when you hear that other doctors also working for the same team, got together to stop the doc in question from applying a further TUE that didn't happen, because they had issues with the ethics of the application.
Exactly. The speeding analogy is thin at the moment; people really wouldn't have a problem with Sky driving at 29 or 30, or 70 on the motorway, would they? The debate doesn't centre on them following the usual rules, does it?
To make the analogy work, you'd need to add in special permission from the authorities to speed, suspicion around the speeding done or the need to actually speed, how often speeding had happened, the continued insistence that you hadn't actually done anything wrong, and the loss of any evidence which might back up your story.
This isn't just taking any opportunity to kick Sky, or BC, or whoever. Look at Froome - clear about his Tue (was it one or two?) at the time, still cycling, very little shit thrown his way over this. This Wiggins/Jiffy stuff is different - hence the accusations.
I said it would all go very Armstwrong years ago. And voila.
WTF is going on with these duplicated stories/sets of comments...
I was just about to reply to a comment that went along the lines of 'no new evidence, nothing to see' etc etc that is spectacularly missing the point.
Reputational damage does not work like that. PT Barnum would walk away from the mess that is currently Sky/BC, and that won't be lost on Froome or whichever Murdoch finds himself having to deal with this shit.
There are a bunch of comments that have disappeared. I also responded to the comment you are referring to. The comment and my response have gone.
What are the odds on Sky pulling sponsorship at the end of the year?
Pages