Shane Sutton

[John the Monkey]

You'd perhaps like to think that in that situation you would have seen the opportunity to generate big headlines for a (still relatively obscure) sport and advance the cause of women's cycling (and cycling in general) and bring it up to the profile of men's cycling. The time was right, after all.

Here's Chasing Wheels' take;

Four Reasons Why Sky Should Have Invested in a Womens' Team
http://www.chasingwheels.com/britis...should-have-invested-in-a-british-womens-team

 

[DogTired]

Here's Chasing Wheels' take;

Four Reasons Why Sky Should Have Invested in a Womens' Team
http://www.chasingwheels.com/britis...should-have-invested-in-a-british-womens-team

Going back to an earlier point I made: "Its an intelligent thing to do to separate what is sexism and what is economics.".

The chasingwheels arguments are bull. Absolute dross. "Women control the purchasing decisions" So what? Are we trying to get more public involvement in cycling (a key plank of the Sky/BC/Brailsford effort) or to buy more stuff? If its to buy more stuff then why put money into a minority event? Personally I'd like more money invested in promoting utility cycling and supporting how women would like to cycle as a mass activity.

Throwing money at a womens giro team and even winning it - thats a fantastic achievement and no-one disputes the effort and commitment (except maybe the mens giro riders, what with it being a third of the length of their race, but thats another point) but who gives enough of a stuff to pay for it?

Not as many people are bothered about watching Championship League footie compared to the Premiership. Some like F1, some like Superbikes. Not as many people are as bothered about watching womens tour cycling compared to mens. There's less interest in womens cycling. There's less interest in club cycling. There's less interest in junior cycling.

People pay to watch the absolute pinnacle. It doesn't diminish their admiration for the achievements of competitive womens cyclists or juniors.

Do you think for one minute if ASO could make a single euro out of a womens TdF (and they have been bloody brilliant at promoting the mens TdF) they'd go 'Mais non, its women'?

 

[lyn1]

Here's Chasing Wheels' take;

Four Reasons Why Sky Should Have Invested in a Womens' Team
http://www.chasingwheels.com/britis...should-have-invested-in-a-british-womens-team

Reasonable points but based on a flawed assumption which weakens or invalidates the argument. Perhaps understandably when written by a cyclist it assumes that the decision is whether to fund a ladies cycle team or not and that the only ladies sport in need of funding and development is cycling. That is not the issue or decision faced by most large companies who receive several thousand unsolicited sponsorship requests each year. Additionally, they proactively investigate many sponsorship opportunities that clearly support their marketing objectives. There are hundreds of different sponsorship platforms available, so the decision about what to sponsor is far more wide reaching than a ladies cycle team or not. The fact that "it would not cost much" is not the issue, as many other opportunities would be similarly priced and may be more cost effective.
If Sky came out tomorrow and said they were dividing a million pounds into ladies sport teams or leisure activity, but cycling was not one of those, I am convinced that in some quarters they would still be accused of sexism, because they fund a men's team but not one for the ladies. I would like to see a Sky ladies team, but 25 years in this market suggests to me that presenting a sensible economic/financial justification rather than demanding something based on equality is likely to be more persuasive in a commercial world where the prospective funding sources are "for profit" businesses.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The thing about Sky sponsorship is a bit of a sideshow, in that the spotlight is (or should be) on BC and the use of lottery money, not so much on Sky and the use of their own commercial dosh.

Should Sky fund a womens team? Well, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. It's possible that more sponsor input could cause public interest in womens events to rise. After all, over recent years womens cycling in the UK has thrown up names like Cooke, Pooley, Pendleton, Armitstead who have a degree of fame outside the world of cycling - mainly due to Olympic exposure. So Sky could get a world or Olympic champion with publicly known name on the cheap. (Unlike in mens cycling where they have to pay for blokes that no-one outside cycling has heard of, like ... er ... Kennaugh )

I really don't know enough about the economics of it ...

 

[Hont]

blokes that no-one outside cycling has heard of, or can correctly pronounce the name of, like ... er ... Kennaugh )

FTFY :-)

 

[Dogtrousers]

This is worth a read "An incomplete list of British Cycling’s issues with women riders" on "Unofficial Unsanctioned Women's UCI Cycling Blog"

https://prowomenscycling.com/2016/04/28/british-cycling-women/

 

[DogTired]

The thing about Sky sponsorship is a bit of a sideshow, in that the spotlight is (or should be) on BC and the use of lottery money, not so much on Sky and the use of their own commercial dosh.

Pooley raised the issue about Sky/BC/Sutton and Mr K commented, hence the discussion. Its hard to fathom where Sky/BC end and start. No-one cared when it was all working but an issue now its gone wrong. Strange that BC have said they were unaware of Suttons retainer from Sky which would undoubtedly be viewed as a potential conflict of interest.

"Why didn't anyone ask how it could be that a publicly funded body like British Cycling joined together with a privately funded team – Sky – on a mission to get a British winner of the Tour de France within five years? Why wasn't there a similar plan for the women?" Pooley asked.

 

[resal]

This post made me quite unpopular.

This is a Wegelius thread so I apologise for the diversion but just in case any of you were thinking this pack of sh** were the real McCoy for you to worship each Sunday, think about this http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...x-jibe-only-moments-after-victim-leaves-stage.

A dinner for victims of childhood sexual abuse. You just can't make it up. Think he would care any more than Lance about conning the lot of us ?

You are looking for a "firebreak". The first sign is that it looks nothing like the rest of the clan. Oh - and the clan hate that individual.

Brad's recorded view on Sutton "From the moment we became mates this guy would do anything for me, literally anything. Then again, if you get on the wrong side of him, you've got an enemy for life."

I am joining the dots. Yes - I think Brad is pretty well a soul-mate of Sutton.

Sutton's appalling and outrageous behaviour is nothing new. People knew about it and over-looked it. If you were "his enemy" you certainly couldn't get anyone to take any of your complaints seriously as the BMX rider and various others have recorded.

What do those who criticised me for the above post think now ?

 

[bladesman73]

I've heard of him, too!

kevin reza, nacer bouhanni, germaine burton, there are also a few eritreans apart from tekkers. dont rwanda have a team now? i also see more black people cycling whilst out and about nowadays than say ten years ago.

 

[CaadX]

The thing about Sky sponsorship is a bit of a sideshow, in that the spotlight is (or should be) on BC and the use of lottery money, not so much on Sky and the use of their own commercial dosh.

Should Sky fund a womens team? Well, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. It's possible that more sponsor input could cause public interest in womens events to rise. After all, over recent years womens cycling in the UK has thrown up names like Cooke, Pooley, Pendleton, Armitstead who have a degree of fame outside the world of cycling - mainly due to Olympic exposure. So Sky could get a world or Olympic champion with publicly known name on the cheap. (Unlike in mens cycling where they have to pay for blokes that no-one outside cycling has heard of, like ... er ... Kennaugh )

I really don't know enough about the economics of it ...

The economics are.....der der der der wait for it.... it doesn't matter who's money it is ! It corrupts and everybody gets jealous and they do not get their fair share and so on and you are sponsoring it !

 

[HF2300]

Richard Williams article in the Guardian at the weekend:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...ant-major-commanding-officer-cycling-rio-2016

 

[dellzeqq]

Richard Williams article in the Guardian at the weekend:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...ant-major-commanding-officer-cycling-rio-2016

very poor. Williams personalises what is clearly an institutional problem.

 

[Crackle]

It gets worse for BC after the leak of this email, quite clearly carrying a threat

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british-cycling-threatens-riders-about-speaking-out-in-leaked-email/

Director Andy Harrison informed athletes that interview responses could play a role in British Cycling’s ‘ability to support you as the current season unfolds.

Which he blames on a poorly constructed sentence. Bullshit if I ever saw it. Scrambling backwards once his email got leaked, things must be a lot worse there than we even think.

 

[rich p]

FFS, do these people think it's not going to get in the public domain?
Are they that naive?

 

[mjr]

FFS, do these people think it's not going to get in the public domain?
Are they that naive?

In a word, yes. Many people still seem to think that the Microsoft "recall email" function works. The idea that you shouldn't type things into a computer if you'd be embarrassed if anyone else saw it seems not to have caught on yet.