Two weekends in a row British newspaper The Mail on Sunday (here and here) has delivered up court documents from an old trial in France to embarrass Team Sky with allegations about directeur sportif Servais Knaven’s past.
History
1998 might rhyme with Festina and Pantani but Dutch team TVM had a torrid time too following police investigations that began in March. A truck was stopped by customs police near the city of Reims and vials of EPO were found. The case was reheated when the TVM team was raided in the 1998 Tour de France and various substances were found, some banned and others legal but questionable. TVM riders were held overnight in cells, a stark reminder that they weren’t above the law and a contrast to other countries where it was then possible to buy EPO over the counter in a pharmacy, sometimes without even a prescription. The whole team quit the race, so did seven other squads.
Come the eventual trial in Reims and team manager Cees Priem, team doctor Andrei Mikhailov and a soigneur all protested their innocence but in the trial they got criminal convictions. The court suggested several riders were using EPO including Servais Knaven but at the time no approved test existed.
Since then we’ve had confessions. 1998 Tour riders Jeroen Blijlevens, Bart Voskamp and Steven de Jongh all confessed to EPO use. De Jongh had become a Team Sky DS but left in the wake of the Team Sky’s Zero Tolerance purge and wrote a confessional letter explaining and accounting “I took EPO on a few occasions from 1998 to 2000“. It’s understood De Jongh collected on his contract and he’s now at Tinkoff-Saxo.
When Servais Knaven was interviewed by Team Sky there was no admission of past mistakes so he’s entitled to stay on. It’s here where things get difficult. On the basis of probability a rider entered for the 1998 Tour de France was more likely than not to have abused EPO, we know its use was rife. But that’s a statistical approach, not a factual one and as dot-joining goes, a waste of time. The odds get tighter when we consider Knaven was part of TVM given they were exposed as a team with a big doping problem, to imagine him on brood en water is a stretch but still possible. The chances get slimmer again with the courtroom claims of blood values, although this is not an approved test so again it hints but doesn’t stand up by itself. But there’s more, Knaven admitted that a mini pharmacy of products found in his room including Persantin which he claims were for preventing cramps but actually designed for “blood thinning”, to prevent clots: ideal for the EPO abuser worried about their viscous, ketchup like blood not flowing so well, especially with the risk of a stroke at night. Once again a clue but not proof of EPO use.
If by now you’ve made up your mind on whether Servais Knaven was using EPO in the 1998 Tour de France you’re like most of the human race who string facts and circumstances into assumptions. It’s perfectly normal… but it’s not the way the law works. Sky cannot ejected him because of allegations, hunches or circumstantial claims. Without proof no employer can tear up a contract. All this is made clear in an audio interview with Dave Brailsford by Lionel Birnie for The Cycling Podcast. Listen for yourself, the talk about Knaven starts after 21 minutes. Two quotes from Brailsford:
“Unfortunately there was nothing concrete… that says to us this is undeniable”
“Whilst he maintains that position and without anything absolutely concrete to the contrary we have to take him at his word“
You can sense thinks one thing but doesn’t have the proof. Without going too far down a Kremlinology rabbit hole “whilst he maintains that position” makes it sound like Knaven is having to temporarily hold to course. You suspect that Knaven will be “moving on” once his contract is up.
The trouble for Team Sky is that the “Zero Tolerance” policy sounds like a black and white issue but has been generated some murky outcomes. Some riders did confess and leave the team but others, for example Sean Yates, happened to leave the team at the same time with talk of health and family although elements of the press thought otherwise as the front page screen grab above from the time suggests. This muddies the promised clear water: was Yates pushed out by the Zero Tolerance policy or not? Thinking aloud was Michael Rogers switch to Saxo-Tinkoff over the same winter related or not?
Zero Tolerance is a good policy
It’s a tool rather than a solution, Zero Tolerance can help but it won’t fix everything. As the CIRC and everyone else knows, entourage matters and excluding those with a dodgy past can mean an healthier environment. It helps from a PR perspective too as the team can be seen to take a stronger line than others. However if a rider has avoided being caught doping for years do we think they will confess during an employment interview? If they’ve been wiring money, transfusing blood and lying to everyone for years no Sky-branded investigation is guaranteed to flush them out. The danger is those who put their hands up and admit mistakes get excluded – au revoir Bobby Julich – while the good liars stay on-board. As such Zero Tolerance is intolerant of those who are honest enough to admit it or were dumb or unlucky enough to get caught.
The irony is that Team Sky get bashed for this policy while Andrei Mikhailov – he of the criminal conviction for doping mentioned above – is Katusha’s team doctor and everybody shrugs. By all means ask about Knaven but there’s a collective problem, it’s not about one person’s skeleton’s in the cupboard but the large locker-room and ossuary that is cycling’s past. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with Mikhailov than Knaven?
Summary
The inbox has had several “what about Knaven” questions in recent days and hopefully piece explains things. Knaven’s case gets special treatment, on one side the aggressive tone of a British newspaper (keen to stick it to a team owned by a corporate rival?) and on the other the Zero Tolerance policy of the team. As much as the case against him looks strong enough for many to make up their minds, there’s no smoking gun to fire him.
Knaven’s story is old but cases keep appearing like unexploded ordnance from a distant war. Dig and you’ll find. Only the other day Laurent Jalabert was squirming again. Remember Stuart O’Grady didn’t dope and then when the French senate tests caught him he confessed to doping once? Now a British newspaper has unearthed the dirt on Servais Knaven. Often it’s not the revelation that riders were using the EPO in the late 1990s that’s embarrassing, it’s the way some struggle to to admit things. Everyone knows, few talk.
Where are you going to find an experienced DS who didn’t dope in the 90s? Time to move on.
Totally agree, but then guys like Riis, Julich, Vaughters are due the same consideration. So many commenting are so blindly critical of doping from that group of riders, although virtually the entire peleton were doped to the gills.
This can’t be a Team Sky biased approach….remember Knaven was on those Domo teams that absolutely crushed the peleton in ONE-DAY races. That’s a lot of pharma help to do that.
I think the Zero Tolerance Policy is a catastrophe. Imo it enforces omerta. Be honest and open and get punished. Lie and deceive and you will be rewarded. As much as I disagree with Vaughters about a lot of things, I do think his approach is far better. Let those from the past stay as long as they will be honest and cooperate with the anti-doping authorities.
I think it’s a good policy but it has a cost like this kind of media embarassment. It has sent some riders out but as said above, it wasn’t communicated to clearly. But it does mean some can remain on the team if they tell another lie and keep quiet about their past.
However as we’ve seen elsewhere those who do put their hands up “pass go and collect” and quickly find work elsewhere. As De Jongh wrote it was a shock for family and friends but all seems to have worked out.
A media cost that Brailsford seems to have accepted in the interview. I suspect a zero FUTURE tolerance plan would have suited him rather better personally, but his sponsors had other stupider ideas. This interview seems to be the first hint of a “think what you damn well like” attitude developing. No bad thing, that, probably.
But this is a nonsense arguement. If it enforces ‘omerta’, where are all the riders on other teams confessing? There aren’t any.
It’s not Sky’s policy that is keeping riders quiet, it’s human nature. No-one likes owning up to wrong doings. Sky have had Julich, De Jongh and Barry be honest and co-operate with authorities. Where are the riders from the apprently untouchable MPCC teams? O the MPCC management committee – only two of thirteen of them talked to CIRC.
Not sure that you can say that being in Zero Tolerance team enforces omertà than being in a team that doesn’t. You only have to look at the Ryder Hesjedal debacle when at Garmin (a vaughters team) to show that is nonsensical.
Why? He talked to the relevant anti-doping authorities before anything was in the press.
It was the publication of Michael Rasmussen’s autobiography that pushed Ryder Hesjedal into publicly confessing that he had doped as a mountain biker in 2003 and 2004. I agree that he spoke to USADA in early 2013, but remember he joined Slipstream in 2008. That’s at least 5 years of silence from rider/team. Therefore, the assertion that Vaughters is somehow immune from Omertà does not stand up.
I don’t think the policy is a catastrophe, but I think there are better ways of doing things. Having listened to the Cycling Podcast interview last week, I got the impression that if DB could do it all again, he wouldn’t have a zero tolerance policy, but it would be more embarrassing to scrap it now, so he’s had to stick with it.
It’s also quite striking how the Daily Hate, er, sorry, Mail, has misrepresented Sky’s position. I know it shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that the Mail would do such a thing, but still. My reading of it is that they would get rid of Knaven if they thought it would stand up in court should he sue them, not that they have exonerated him.
Maybe they should just take a chance and fire him, and accept that they might have to make a payout, because the embarrassment of it all would probably stop him from suing them. If he’s guilty, then personally, I think he should have admitted it in 2012 and taken a payout, because he won’t get one now unless he sues them, and like Inrng points out above, he probably won’t have his contract renewed now.
Yes, there are better ways around it. The Outer Line describes teams like Optum that uses it less as a publicity/outreach tool and more as a recruitment/corporate trust tool. You don’t see it splattered in the newspaper, notorious (fairly or not) riders and managers simply don’t get an interview.
This is one level below, though. Big issues still to come with the legacy of doping riders becoming DS and all that.
I’ve suspected for some time that Brailsford’s preferred position would have been to accept those repentant sinners and poachers turned gamekeepers who having confessed their past would now advance the anti-doping cause (e.g. David Millar and Bobby Julich), but their sponsors demanded the zero tolerance rule. And the golden rule is that those who supply the gold, rule.
Of course, since those sponsors are a media group, other media groups in the UK love the chance to put the boot in.
Really balanced piece as usual.
What the press fail to highlight is that the “Zero Tolerance” policy applies to everything within the set up and structure of team and doesn’t give DB the credit he deserves in trying to rid the sport of doping.
Yes, taking that approach to people who were around in cyclings murky past is going to be difficult and not perfect, however, DB has stuck to his principles where he can and should be lauded for that. Likewise, Jonathan Vaughters takes a polar approach (in a positive way) and he should be lauded also.
Working to a principle doesn’t mean you are going to be 100% perfect all of the time – it simply sets the tone for the way you want to work and provides a standard to which staff and employees are expected to operate with the knowledge that, if you don’t, you are out. Take the “criminal record” element of contracts of employment – you can apply for a job and lie about your criminal past, get the job and get away with not divulging your past. This doesn’t mean the employer should be castigated for taking that approach – it is just setting the standard.
I fully accept people will have different opinions on the “zero tolerance” approach – I just wish people would move on and, as Inrng states, focus on the real culprits and do something about them. The Circ report has proven that potentially doing away with the zero tolerance approach doesn’t work either – look how many came forward to them and admittedly culpability with the offer of anonymity!
This is a brilliant case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. DB deserves credit for putting his head above the parapet and at least trying to set a standard, even if it does prove difficult to achieve
+1
As Netserk and Inrng posted, the Brailsford policy doesn’t work. Like cycling itself, it goes from scandal to scandal addressing very little.
I’m definitely not a JV fan, but, the pragmatic approach he claims to use to operate his team is a better alternative. You end up with ridiculous stories like Ryder’s claims, but, it acknowledges how poorly Hein ran the sport. It’s incrementally better and introduces the idea, not actual, transparency.
If the sport’s brand is to ever rehabilitate itself, transparency is the only effective policy as the ongoing lies will lead to another doping controversy.
Who’s lying though, and how do we know?
As ever I love the way this site balances what’s in the news / on the web with some real life pragmatism.
If we always say smoke = fire then we should just sack all DSs and team managers as they (bar Sir D) were all implicated.
How would you know recently retired riders who work as DS are / were clean? Wegelius? Southam?
I know it’s hard to do but at some point we have to start trusting again, or give up and watch WWF or NFL instead, and not give a F.
It’s slightly comforting to see folk getting so wound up though, as it PROVES we give a F!
Steve
There is no scientific proof or admittance of doping. End of story. I rather agree with the poster above, that DB deserves some credit for honestly and openly trying to rid the sport of those found guilty or admitting doping.
There are many more characters in positions of influence employed by other teams, who’s attitudes and history deserve greater scrutiny – and I am not particularly a SKY supporter.
I think that, despite the vastly different approaches of Brailsford and Vaughters, if Knaven either now confessed or was proven to have doped, he’d probably be fired from either team. Brailsford wouldn’t tolerate the doping, Vaughters wouldn’t tolerate the hiding of the deceit.
The good liars only survive in these teams until they’re exposed as such. Then off to Astana.
Or Tinkoff…..
Or anywhere. The problem is systematic and covers much of a generation.
Speaking of Oleg….
He claims to operate a two strikes policy on the basis that everyone should get a second chance in life. But if you get caught out a second time you should be gone. Not just from his team but from the sport.
That strikes me as more sensible than either the policies of Brailsford or Vaughters.
It rather helps that the WADA rules say much the same thing. Life ban for second offence.
What’s the point of the Telegraph’s vendetta against Knaven?
Also that French senate report surprised no one really. Riders were doping in 1998? Hold the front page. Rather than worrying about what Knaven or O’Grady were doing years ago the real focus should be on catching dopers now.
As Inner Ring says; it’s about casting mud at a rival Media Empire, same for the Mail story.
All as good/bad as one another.
There are plenty to sling mud at the Sky media empire, trouble is most of them also live in glass houses. Scum most of em.
its not the Telegraph – this started with the Mail on Sunday under Paul Dacre. Who hates the Murdochs. (though frankly all the media barons hate each other)
And I agree with all the media barons. I hate all the other barons too. 😉
Surely DB knew all this history when deciding to hire Servais Knaven in the first place. That’s the poor judgement that makes his zero policy a bit of a joke.
You may need proof to fire the guy, you don’t need any proof up front when deciding if you should hire the guy in the first place. Similar argument with the hiring of the other guys mentioned in the article.
Hopefully the future recruitment reflects a little more background research and the attention to detail that DB/Sky go on about. Personally I hope it does.
I was thinking the same thing but then started wondering. If Sky ran an open recruitment (which they don’t) I’m not sure they would be allowed to exclude Knaven on the same basis they can’t fire him – nothing’s proven. As long as he met the criteria and didn’t fail any of the others, they could be accused of discriminating against him unless there was someone better qualified.
That gets a bit murky in the world of cycling teams where DSs are recruited based on a network of contacts and relationships but the same test must hold to some degree.
Using the services of private investigators for future hiring, according to those in the know.
Yes, that happens.
“Surely DB knew all this history when deciding to hire Servais Knaven in the first place.” — I doubt it. Just a trackie coach with an obsession over something he learned at Sheffield Management School, who came to be regarded as a great coach in a richly funded program with talented athletes.
Thanks
There’s just no way Sky didn’t know about Knaven doping. Reading “credibilty” and “David Brailsford” makes me so sick, he and Team Sky aren’t nearly as transparent as Froome’s special skinsuit. Having a zero tolerance policy and then hiring DS like Knaven, Arvesen or Cioni is similar to a vegetarian eating a nice steak. Yes, except for Knaven there’s no proof of them doping but no pro would be on any of them being clean throughout their carrers.
It’s beyond me how someone could possibly defend Sky, they aren’t worse than other teams, but they aren’t better, either. Although that’s what they’re trying to tell us.
Well, they do get rid of people proved to have doped or who admit it. Is that not better? Or do you prefer teams run by a smiling Bjarne and an evasive Vino or doctors like Mikhailov at Katusha? Sky got slaughtered for employing Leinders, and rightly so.
So releasing some statements full of lies is better than openly employ fomer dopers?
I do fully agree that it’d be best not to have any former dopers on the team, i doubt we’ll ever see that, though.
+1 Cheating is one thing. Hypocrisy might be worse?
Your story doesn’t address the thing that was responsible for the lawless peloton. Verbruggen and the UCI were okay with the doping. The sensational performances were growing the sport. The CIRC report states this plainly.
It’s 2015 and the UCI is still okay with the doping. The recent changes to the way the UCI handles anti-doping makes it more secretive than ever and only permits more use.
Did Braislford use the “look him in the eyes test” for Knaven? It’s been such an effective test for cycling WADA should consider adding it to their test protocols.
I appreciate your middle road approach to the topic. I’m not so optimistic.
Posters who are calling it ‘Brailsford’s policy’…it isnt. Its Sky’s.
Personally I’ve always thought it unworkable, but just for clarity’s sake its the policy the sponsor has imposed.
You’re right, it is SKY’s policy. And who oversaw the writing of it? Oh yeah, David Brailsford…
I think the nuance you are probably missing is that the sponsor imposed this on Brailsford.
And btw INRNG you are totally on the money about Paul Dacre trying to get at the Murdochs.
Not that it will have the slightest effect on them, cos it wont. But that doesnt stop Dacre having his little men work on this.
That might be a motivation but there’s journalism in getting these public documents and asking questions.
DB may have made marginal gains in a sporting sense, but major back steps in a managerial ways. I think the zero tolerance is a fine policy, and there’s room for both that and the Vaughters model. But how does DB hire Knaven afte the Yates, Julich and Leinders episodes jsut smacks of sheer stupidity. Even the most casul fan knows he was likely a doper. DB needs to basically go outside the sport if he wants a clean DS or immediately promote Danny Pate to the position if he really wants to adhere to Zero Tolerance. Otherwise he’s going to continue to embarass himself. And at this point, Sky’s history has as many ex dopers now basically as Cannondale/Garmin has.
Ummm….Brailsford didn’t hire Knaven ‘after the Yates, Julich and Leinders episodes’…
Knaven had already been an employee of Sky’s for some time by Oct 2012.
I was about to agree with CD but looked up Knaven and you are correct.
I suspect this is why Brailsford spoke as he did in the interview mentioned above. He’s probably been thinking that this could come out since the famous interviews in 2012 and Julich etc leaving.
My only other thought is where do you find a good DS who isnt likely to be tainted at least by association.
Sky’s tactics really struggled in my opinion after Julich and Yates left and this season has been the first where they appear to have started doing something different (Thomas attacks in Algave and P-N for example). Is that possibly down to Knaven stepping up within Sky and using his racing experience to dictate things.
Nico Portal was the lead DS in P-N, and Gabriel Rasch at Algarve. Knaven’s been concentrating on planning their Classics campaign, I think.
I think that its more a case of their DSs learning and maturing. I think its fair to say that the average age of their DSs is somewhat lower than the average across the WT teams. DSing for Sky has been their first DS role post-retiring from racing. Takes time for them to mature once they’ve transitioned from ex-rider to DS.
On the basis of probability a rider entered for the 1998 Tour de France was more likely than not to have abused EPO, we know its use was rife. I really don’t understand the situation. They can get on the stuff and push the limit. What’s the solution?
Well, I’m not sure what people want from Sky specifically, but its split between:
1. Fold the team (which will leave some to find another team to turn their guns on)
2. Reverse their policy
3. Fire Knaven (then find another Sky employee to highlight)
4. Brailsford replace all Sky employees with 16 year olds
As I said in a previous post, I think the zero tolerance thing is unworkable until there’s at least one generation of riders etc flushed through the system. So I am not defending this policy. But I do find the outcries somewhat shrill whilst other teams get free passes.
I think there are bigger issues in the sport then going after them like a pack of wolves over Knaven.
I think the main problem people have with Sky (me first) is that they make a song and dance about their zero policy. Brailsford’s tune has always been: No riders, no staff has ever been involved with doping, we’re 100% clean, always have, always will be etc…
It’s clearly not true. All other teams go on about second chances etc… Whether you agree with it is a different story, but at least they don’t bang on about it like Sky do.
I also agree that there are more important things going on in cycling right now, but that’s the reason why people go after them, is because they continually go on about they are clean and anyone associated with them is clean or were clean during their careers, when it’s clearly not true.
I would be more worried about Sky if their riders were being picked up for drugs offences. There is a team beginning with A that should have the guns pointed at it before it gets to be Sky’s turn.
It had, if I got it right.
DB gets asked questions and he responds. Usually along the lines of ‘we’re committed to racing clean’. Besides the initial launch of the team, when SKY were at pains to let all and sundry know about the zero tolerance policy, I can’t remember DB or SKY ‘banging on’ about being clean.
+1.
Not only does Knaven have the right of presumption of innocence until something is proved against him, so do Team Sky. It is a team that is difficult to like but one can’t use that as an excuse for a witch hunt.
Agreed. It seems like the sport is in the “witch hunt” phase.
How can you take Brailsford’s claim of wanting to get rid of doping and zero policy seriously when Sky’s backroom staff is littered with ex-dopers? When the CIRC report’s mention of weight loss at a leading team couldn’t be done without help of doping is clearly aimed at Sky (Froome, Porte that continually lose weight while somehow becoming more and more powerful). You can’t take him seriously.
You look at Knaven’s team history, for someone so closely associated to cycling, it beggars belief that he even went close to him when anyone with a passing interest in cycling knew that there was mass doping at the team’s Knaven rode for when he was a pro.
And in the meantime whilst some focus all their attention on Sky, Astana riders get busted, they continue to employ their particular head doctor (have a look at his history some time), Lefevere continues to employ Jose Ibarguren Taus (ha!), Movistar employ their doc (ha!) plus Martinelli and co, Katusha employ a head doc who’s actually served jail time….)
At some point the justification of solely focusing attention on Sky ‘because they said’ really starts to wear thin.
All true, but they’re not doing the same anti-doping chest-pounding that Team Sky employs.
But they are much more likely to be actually cheating now. That’s the big point.
Also, we need to get rid of doping doctors more than we need to get rid of riders who doped in the past.
This was a post about Sky, so I talk about Sky. The day there will be a post about Ettix, Movistar or Astana, then I will talk about these teams.
If it suits you, of course.
What’s this “anyone with a passing interest in cycling” rubbish??
It happened 17 years ago so you can probably rule out anyone under 30 for starters. People with a ‘passing interest in cycling’ can’t name 2 of the 5 monuments in my experience, let alone rattle off team names and their rider line ups from the last century and whether or not they were suspicious.
The main issue seems to be that the corporate part of SKY insisted on zero tolerance at a time where that wasn’t a feasible position to take. The hyperbole of the corporate world if you like. Using phrases like ” backroom staff is littered with ex-dopers” and the aforementioned “passing interest in cycling” puts their users in the same bracket.
+100
I am French, maybe my choice of words were not the best. But what I meant was people who have knowledge in cycling know that Knaven’s teams were not clean.
Whether it’s Sky or Brailsford who wanted that Zero tolerance policy doesn’t matter. Like you said, it probably is impossible to have 100% of your riders/staff that were not doping at some point in their careers, I agree. But then, from the start, don’t mention that you don’t want anyone in your team not involved in doping.
If it was Sky’s idea, then Brailsford should have told them it was impossible due to the history in the sport, so that when stories like Knaven’s one came out, people would not be up in arms.
Understand on your choice of words if not your first language. Far better than my French 🙂
What we don’t know is how much was negotiable at the time. Remember the money SKY brought to the table was not just for the men’s road team. It was a tie up with BC as well and it wouldn’t surprise in the slightest if SKY gave the team no choice on that.
I can tell you for certain, having worked on contracts with them, that clauses around corruption, ethics, etc are standard and even if you point out that because of the country they’re dealing with, certain ‘practices’ are ‘standard’, they insist on maintaining those clauses.
We all know the Murdoch empire isn’t known for its ethical behaviour but SKY were a different beast in my dealings with them.
Besides, Brailsford did let David Millar train during his ban, didn’t he? That was an infringement of the WADA code by Millar, but most likely also by Brailsford.
umm. No. There was no infringement of the WADA Code. Miller did not train as part of the GB track squad during his ban, and of course there was so British trade team run by Brailsford between 2004-06 with which Millar could or could not train.
Brailsford let him use the Manchester velodrome at times – as can any member of the public who pays the track fee – and he dropped off some old jerseys and shorts for him (according to Millar’s book).
Why do people just invent this stuff to suit their bias?
From the 2003 WADA Code:
“10.9 Status During Ineligibility
No Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by any Signatory or Signatory’s member
organization.”
I don’t think (cycling) training is part of an authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation program…
‘authorized or organized by any Signatory or Signatory’s member organization’ refers to sanctioned events – in cycling terms, national fed or UCI.
Not the actual activity of getting on a bike and riding, whether training or nipping down the shop for a pint of milk.
For goodness sake…
It seems to me that some posters here can’t see the wood for the trees. For goodness sake get in the real world, a world where cycling has more than its fair share of enablers, dopers and ex dopers.
To take aim at Sky, a team which is at lest trying to openly address the problem, reeks of worst kind of hypocrisy. Why not take some time to educate yourselves a little more about the owners, staff and background of some of those closely associated with other WT teams. You might just end up with a more balanced view on the scale of the problem.
Looks to me like a ‘I hate sky at any costs’ selection of rants, rather than a balanced, informed and educated take on the reality. Question the policy, but remember, no doping charges against Knaven and he has never admitted to wrong doing. You can suspect as much as you like, but innuendo is no substitute for proof.
I came to this site in the first place to escape the crazy, uniformed, obsessive, ranting’s on some other places. Maybe all good things come to an end.
“openly address the problem” lmao. Leinders, TUEs, Asthma, Henao (still waiting for the study to be published btw), having dopers (Knaven’s low EPO doesn’t leave room for any other explanation except for a faulty analysis) on the team while promoting their zero tolerance policy etc.
Ofc, the other teams aren’t any better but they present themselves as the saviours of clean cycling.
“(still waiting for the study to be published btw)”
You’ve clearly never had the joy of putting work through peer review if you think there’s anything suspicious about not publishing data within nine months.
Two papers I’ve got published this year were from work done in 2012 and 2013.
I think you’ll find the MPCC do a pretty good job of saying they’re the promoters of clean cycling. It’s just that they go with the second/third chance option.
I also think you’ll find that if you want to list dodgy practises and dodgy names by team, most of the MPCC members make SKY look like a guy serving community service hanging out with a bunch of Mexican cartel drug barons.
I agree with Mark here.
Saying that Sky “openly address the problem” reeks of the worst kind of fanboyism.
According to the guy who created the EPO test, Knaven’s either has either serious kidney damage or took EPO. Do we question this guy’s judgement? Because if we do, we might as well pack it all in.
Sky said they took on 3 of their own experts to conclude that nothing was wrong with Knaven, but won’t name them? Who are these experts?
Also, to get rid of the problem, if Knaven has never taken EPO, then they should just release information about his kidney damage. Problem solved then.
I think a few moved over from CN comments, for sure.
Plenty of rational debaters still here though, BC.
BC. yes and no
-1 respectful, reasoned and informed debate has been the keystone bolstering the arch of intelligent analysis provided by inrng over the all these years. Our host and you all have provided exceptional insight that will continue to prevail. This good thing isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Not sure if it’s 100% apropos but reminded of Gladiator “you will meet them again, but not yet. not yet”.
+1 the deep personal vitriol towards Sky et al gets comical. You said it best ‘I hate Sky at any cost . . ‘. You’d think DB shows up each morning and personally relieves himself in their cereal. Sky is an incredible organization at the WT level, to Olympic level, to working with kids and philanthropic efforts, that really gives a good go to combating our past ills. This is a long process of trial and error that will take years to comprehend what works and what doesn’t. At no time do they seem to profess being “better than everyone”. They simply address it every time questions are posed to them which seems to be far more than any other organization. I’m sure JV is happy to pass that torch.
+1 BC – for everything.
I don’t like Sky (can’t like anything associated with Murdoch), but as Sam says above:
‘And in the meantime whilst some focus all their attention on Sky, Astana riders get busted, they continue to employ their particular head doctor (have a look at his history some time), Lefevere continues to employ Jose Ibarguren Taus (ha!), Movistar employ their doc (ha!) plus Martinelli and co, Katusha employ a head doc who’s actually served jail time….)’
The real problems – i.e. the dodgy doctors – are elsewhere.
Great article on JIT:
http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/so-just-who-is-dr-jose-ibarguren-taus/
Sky’s policies have many flaws and they are guilty of hubris – as pointed out above. Same can be said of Cannondale-Garmin. But these two teams are a massive improvement on many others – and that’s where the focus should be: the teams who very probably still are doping; not the teams who have a big mouth.
Er, no. The focus should be on all teams in a sport with such a hideous reputation as professional cycling. That focus has to come from wholly independent National anti-doping agencies, supported by well funded judicial authorities with powers akin to those Federal ones so usefully employed against US Postal and Armstrong. In UKAD’s case they are part of the Department of Culture, Media & Sport and therefore fatally compromised in terms of conflict of interest.
Sky are doubly protected by a seeming wilful conspiracy of silence (particularly in relation to Leiders’ employment) related to not only this obvious conflict of interest, but Brian Cookson’s conflict of interest related to his son’s employment at Team Sky and personal history setting the team up as an an eminence- grise in British cycling.
Cookson by any rational standard should have been calling for full rigorous investigation of Sky, and Sapstead by the same token should have already set up the investigation helped by the full weight of the law, with all the penalties for non-compliance that the US Federal investigation was able to bring to bear in their jurisdiction.
If Sky are as squeaky clean as they claim there is nothing to fear and everything to gain.
It’s a no brainer, the whole situation stinks.
Somehow I feel that Giant Shimano/Alpacin is doing a much better job than Team Sky. Maybe actions do speak louder than words…
I was so sickened by the festina affair as an 18 year old that I stopped racing and watching it, and only started again 2 years ago. Therefore while I’m not a massive sky fan I’m totally surportive of the principles behind sky’s stance, whether it works in practice or not.
Be careful with assuming that a team like Sky that continually tells the whole world they will do everything in their power to keep doping out is automatically one of the more trustworthy teams when it comes to doping. I feel the same as Arjen about Alpacin, even though I can’t really support it with any evidence.
There have been some signs over the last couple of years at Sky that have raises suspicions, although maybe noting illegal has happened. I still find it hard to believe that the Tour riders in the Sky team that won the Tour with Wiggins were all so ridiculously strong. I am sure it reminded many of you of US Postal in the Tour. Michael Rogers for example had never been a top climber but in the Tour he could be counted among the top 5 in the high mountains. He has also never achieved that level again after that Tour. Perhaps it was all due to revolutionary training regimes or a different diet but I would not be surprised if another truth came out many years from now.
‘Michael Rogers for example had never been a top climber but in the Tour he could be counted among the top 5 in the high mountains. He has also never achieved that level again after that Tour.’
Mick Rogers. This would be the same Mick Rogers who won Ruta del Sol in 2005, Tour of California in 2010, 2nd in ’05 Tour de Suisse, 2nd in ’13 Tour of California? 6th on GC at the ’09 Giro? 3rd on GC at the ’10 Tour of Romandie? 2nd at the ’10 Criterium International? The same Mick Rogers who won the Tour stage into Bagneres-de-Luchon last year, and who won the 2 stages of last year’s Giro, incl the Zoncolon finish? I could go on – but I cant be bothered.
Righty-o.
Wout Poels at 180cm and 66kg (PCS stats) brought out a lot of comments regarding his looks along with the move to SKY.
Pinot seems to have strengthened with a good TT and a great ride overall. 180cm and 63kg and not a murmer.
I think we can all see what we want to see
Fwiw, I very much hope that both riders are clean and would think that again, both, are more likely to be than not.
All of these talk about Ómerta and doping sidesteps the real issue at hand. And that is that kits in the 90’s are awful.
Wasn’t Heinrich Himmler the founder/inventor of the Quick-Step flooring system? My point is you can’t hate on a team just because of the owner. Murdoch will be dead soon anyway. What if Murdoch sets up some Cycling PL? I remember many people laughably saying back in 1992 that they would never watch Murdoch’s football PL. Blowhards all.
Bizarre claim! Laminate flooring came from Sweden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminate_flooring#History
Why do you think those parades looked so impressive? They laminated everything from way back. Plus many top boys hid out in Sweden post-war. Perstorp a front. All adds up.