-
I think we're coming at it from generally the same angle.
At every turn there's more questions to be answered though. I don't think it's unreasonable, in the pursuit of clean sport, for people at the highest level to be required to explain themselves satisfactorily when it comes to anti-doping questions.
For a team apparently so meticulous, to be in this situation is laughable if they've done nothing wrong and I find it hard to believe that with such a focus on details, they're stuttering and mumbling through this for months as if they can't remember.
And, with Sky, most people are only holding them to the standards they set for themselves. They claimed zero tolerance, transparency and clean sport and we're in a situation where they've been caught out in the darkest of grey areas on many occasions.
There's only so many times I'm prepared to hear Brailsford say 'we made a mistake, we've learned from this and we're moving on.' It's also the damage it could be doing to British Cycling which is unfair to those riders.
You are reading a single comment by @johnnyhotdog and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
johnnyhotdog
It's elite professional sport, anyone who places trust in athletes and teams who participate in it is away with the fairies.
The issue I have here is that all sorts of accusations are being made without any real evidence. The usual suspects want this to the UK version of the USPS/Tailwind sports debacle, but there is no evidence that backs this up.
Sky have handled the whole thing terribly, but it's well established that for a team representing a media company, they are consistently bloody awful at PR.
I should add - I don't care how respected Matt Lawton is, he works for a fascist rag and deserves contempt.