Team Skys anti-doping policy has come under much scrutiny lately, and though I don't agree with every aspect of the 'sign or die' or policy, I was left feeling a little empty when Sean Yates wriggled out of the back door with his 'need to spend time with family' line rather than face the music and set the record straight like a man with dignity. So when I hear that Mick Rogers looks set to be joining Saxobank via the same back door, I was left a little bemused...

The main criticism of the Sky policy is that it is to hard on those who have admitted guilt or previously been punished - the consensus elsewhere is that everybody deserves a second chance and I too advocate this sentiment in much the same vein as the policy that is in place at Garmin-Sharp. However, Sky's policy does not look set to change any time soon, so if such a stringent policy is put in place my only request is: at least follow it, stringently...

At the minute, its only speculation that Mick Rogers is set to join Saxobank as Alberto Contadors domestique in the mountains, with both teams refusing to comment rather than denying it though, it looks highly probable. After-all there had been rumours that Sky were 'giving Mick time' to find a new team. Sky had also said all 'interviews' had been conducted and no riders were set to leave as a result of the anti-doping policy even though we all know deep down that Mick is probably dirty - Tyler Hamilton says he is positively dirty and word is that Tyler knows what he's saying, these days. Here's why I'm bemused though:

Bobby Julich admitted his guilt and was subsequently released by Sky, the policy worked well here. Sean Yates refused to admit that he had even heard of doping during the 90's and yet he was merely allowed to 'retire', likewise Mick Rogers has denied any accusations thrown at him and may well do so again yet he was allowed to 'find a new team' rather than face the public - of course we do not know that Mick is leaving because of the policy, but it does all look rather suspect and who knows, once he's on the roster at Saxo maybe Brailsford and co will say that 'yes, Mick couldn't sign the declaration and we had to let him go' which would be sort of OK but it's not the door in face that Julich received, more a gently opening and closing. If it does transpire that Rogers couldn't sign the declaration, why should he be allowed a quiet exit when really he should be made an example of? And if it transpires that Rogers didn't sign the declaration but neither he or Sky admit that his exit was anything to do with doping then, I'm afraid, that shows the policy to be somewhat of a joke. And not a funny one.

I will reserve complete judgement until anything becomes official, its certainly going to be an interesting one. Maybe Rogers will get his due in the big Austrailian investigation...