# Froome and Wiggins TUEs



## Joffey (15 Sep 2016)

Were released last night from the hack. Bit dull really. Froome had confirmed his 2 TUEs to Richard Moore ages ago and we've known about Wiggins' asthma for years.

I really hoped they would release something juicy but it's all a bit lame.


----------



## Tin Pot (15 Sep 2016)

Joffey said:


> Were released last night from the hack. Bit dull really. Froome had confirmed his 2 TUEs to Richard Moore ages ago and we've known about Wiggins' asthma for years.
> 
> I really hoped they would release something juicy but it's all a bit lame.



Russians hack WADA and all is revealed! 

Seriously though, there are two things to take away here;

1. If hackers can't find evidence of a cover up at WADA, there probably isn't one.

2. If it was Russia, they were looking to locate people from the whereabouts information athletes have to provide


----------



## MossCommuter (15 Sep 2016)

User3094 said:


> Proportion of cyclists with asthma compared to the general population? Especially when considering these are very fit young men.
> 
> Suspicious or a side effect of being that fit?


From the Grauniad:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Sep 2016)

MossCommuter said:


> From the Grauniad:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid


I like this bit
_the good news for wheezy children wistfully dreaming of a sporting career is that research is increasingly uncovering just how many asthmatics there are in top-level sport._

I was that wheezy child.


----------



## oldroadman (15 Sep 2016)

When operating at the top end of your potential, any small problems become obvious. Like the asthma induced by extreme exercise - for instance try climbing a 10km col at race speed. Also the immune system is right on the edge of being compromised, as an example bronchitis can spread like wildfire through a peloton. So it's hardly a surprise that TUEs for medications which can be used in higher doses to offer potential performance benefits are about. The fact that the TUE is in place, for me indicates that team doctors are actually doing their job properly. The hack and exposure of date which means nothing looks just like a revenge job for getting caught out. Good job the old East German lot are not around with their system, in today's world they would likely have had some real problems with WADA!


----------



## Joffey (15 Sep 2016)

I kind of agree with @oldroadman here. We can all get our tin foil hats on and scream coverup but elite athletes are on the edge and push their bodies hard. The body may react with exercise induced asthma and some drugs on a TUE can bring this down to 'normal'.

I just try to enjoy the sport now. The athletes using TUEs are operating within the rules so there is nothing that me kicking off can do. It is the same for everyone and it's medically supervised at UCI level (panel of 3 docs). It's not ideal but it is what it is and until it changes athletes will use TUEs.

At least Froome, who stated he had 2 TUEs actually had 2 leaked so it kind of makes him more believable in that respect.


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Sep 2016)

By the same token there are IIRC there are a lot of archery and shooting people who need to take beta blockers for *ahem* heart conditions ....


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Sep 2016)

These particular relevations aren't particularly exciting. The fact that they originate from Russia suggests they might be diversionary tactics.

But there is a bigger debate to be had about TUEs, transparency and an athlete's right to privacy.

Ross Tucker (not everyone's favourite person I know) said yesterday:
_So we have Door #1 - genuine medical issue, needs TUE, but should the athlete be competing? I'd say in many cases, "no". Like chest infection
Then Door #2 - no medical issue, so TUE is exploitation of loophole, no different to doping, which should be illegal. 
Either door, problems
_
If you need medication to circumvent the performance constraints that your body imposes (eg bronchial spasm in response to exercise stress) then it does look a bit dopingish.


----------



## Crackle (15 Sep 2016)

Door 3, is trapdoor which Tucker falls through.


----------



## Louch (15 Sep 2016)

Having looked deeper into it, the dates of some or the ingected treatments so lose to tours looks suspicious. Can't believe the same problems crop up at same times each year. It's not illegal, but casts shade on things for me slightly. Especially with performances being so much better than rivals, when tue is meant to allow to compete. If that Ill even with medicine it would show no?


----------



## ColinJ (15 Sep 2016)

I have seen Froome and many other top pros having coughing fits when being interviewed immediately after stage wins, which does tend to support the exercise-induced asthma claims.


----------



## oldroadman (15 Sep 2016)

Louch said:


> Having looked deeper into it, the dates of some or the ingected treatments so lose to tours looks suspicious. Can't believe the same problems crop up at same times each year. It's not illegal, but casts shade on things for me slightly. Especially with performances being so much better than rivals, when tue is meant to allow to compete. If that Ill even with medicine it would show no?


From that comment you could be led to think that no other single rider in the peloton had a TUE in force, or that no convicted dopers who had "served their time" were ever in the peloton. The best riders are the best because they are the best. Even in darker days (and I'm thinking pre-Armstrong) the best still did the winning. Just taking some substance does not turn a donkey into a racehorse, despite what the naïve might like to think.


----------



## Louch (15 Sep 2016)

Not saying they are not great athletes without this medication. But it's very hard to Deny if when taking it they are a step ahead of other great athletes so convincingly, that there is a benefit coming from these dosings rather than just "making them feel better". Weight loss from cortisones very shortly before a grand tour can't be a total detriment. As I said none of this is illegal, just to me takes the shine off what was meant to be something different from the past. Now just feels hidden in plain sight wth increase in TUEs when riders are meant to be better treated than ever, and more monitored, which I woud believe would result in less illness, not more . Not just a sky thing, across the pros as several other teams have same dealings, but with less success than Sky's main men


----------



## Ian H (15 Sep 2016)

Pro cycling has always been down and dirty. That's part of the fascination.


----------



## Louch (15 Sep 2016)

I'm only three years into pro stuff, read a lotta books and articles on history. Paying the price of my own nievity


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (15 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Even in darker days (and I'm thinking pre-Armstrong) the best still did the winning. Just taking some substance does not turn a donkey into a racehorse, despite what the naïve might like to think.




For someone who states they are anti-doping you don't half fall into the trap of using language that many dopers use.


----------



## Joffey (16 Sep 2016)

Can anyone link a study that shows that a week of asthma drugs at the level on the TUE of Froome can have such benefits that he could win a stage race? Or are we presuming that these drugs would give a super beneficial advantage to the rider and are jumping on the bandwagon? Or are any of us doctors who could comment if the drug use on the TUE is excessive for an elite athlete?


----------



## coffeejo (16 Sep 2016)

What next: do we stop them from having bandages, plasters and pain relief after a crash? 

I agree that we need to ask questions and ensure that cyclists and teams are kept under close scrutiny, but I've not got any objections to the legitimate use of legitimate medication.


----------



## oldroadman (16 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> For someone who states they are anti-doping you don't half fall into the trap of using language that many dopers use.


You'll have to excuse me for that. It's an age thing. When someone is from that time period we tend to use basic language which can seem difficult to some. There's no "excuses" in the post, just a simple statement of facts. Getting beaten by people who may or may not have better ability is OK, and in that darker past when it would be strange not to wonder if most riders "prepared" then if "prepared" rider A is better than "prepared" rider B they still win whether "prepared" or not. What I do know is that being "unprepared" makes life a bit harder. But at least it's possible to keep healthy, look your children in the eye and say you did things the right way, even if success was limited and obscurity guaranteed.


----------



## Crackle (16 Sep 2016)

TUE's have a place. Asthma is much more comon than you imagine and having it puts you at a disadvantage even with treatment. Can I ask if those moaning about it drive a diesel?


----------



## psmiffy (16 Sep 2016)

Im ambivalent about the asthma thing - I shared a dorm at school with a guy who really suffered with asthma - he was the regional 100m champion at his age and a fabulous athlete at many other sports - his ability didnt come from his inhaler


----------



## ColinJ (16 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> TUE's have a place. Asthma is much more comon than you imagine and having it puts you at a disadvantage even with treatment. Can I ask if those moaning about it drive a diesel?


My lungs have improved after my recent health problems but they are still not perfect.

I generally avoid traffic congestion but there are currently roadworks on the A646 and I got caught in traffic jams there both ways yesterday. The diesel fumes were really not nice at all! Some of the vehicles were spewing out great plumes of black exhaust gases as they accelerated away when the lights turned to green.

So much for diesel reducing air pollution ...


----------



## HF2300 (16 Sep 2016)

Louch said:


> Not saying they are not great athletes without this medication. But it's very hard to Deny if when taking it they are a step ahead of other great athletes so convincingly, that there is a benefit coming from these dosings rather than just "making them feel better".





Joffey said:


> Can anyone link a study that shows that a week of asthma drugs at the level on the TUE of Froome can have such benefits that he could win a stage race?



Given that Froome has only two TUEs traceable to discrete periods and has also won or placed convincingly when not taking medication, notably in GTs, it's probably reasonable to assume the medication isn't a significant contributor to his performance (or the lack of medication isn't a significant detriment)


----------



## Dogtrousers (16 Sep 2016)

No one's suggesting that Froome has abused the system in this particular instance. (Well, I expect they are in the Clinic, but hey ...) These latest relevations are, in themselves, a bit of a damp squib. Froome's just one of the famous names in this un-exciting leak.

The real issue with TUEs is highlighted by US runner Lauren Fleshman's reports of getting asthma medication on TUE and being pressed by Alberto Salazar to use the medication in a manner at odds with the medical advice.

@coffeejo bandages & plasters aren't on the WADA banned list. Painkillers are an interesting one. There was a bit of a fuss about Tramadol abuse in cycling recently but I can't remember what came of it. I don't think it's been put on the banned list since.

I certainly don't trust athletes in general not to abuse any and every potential loophole that appears, and TUEs do present a tempting loophole.


----------



## coffeejo (16 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> @coffeejo bandages & plasters aren't on the WADA banned list. Painkillers are an interesting one. There was a bit of a fuss about Tramadol abuse in cycling recently but I can't remember what came of it. I don't think it's been put on the banned list since.


Consider my post along the lines of Froome's response to the suggestion that power meters should be banned


----------



## Dogtrousers (16 Sep 2016)

Cycling News WADA cyber-attack raises questions for Sky, cycling and TUE system at large

NY Times, about a Tennis Player. 
Behind Bethanie Mattek-Sands’s Drug-Use Exemption, Questions About Her Doctor


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Sep 2016)

If only we had threads to discuss the intricacies of doping in cycling and other sports....


----------



## Fab Foodie (16 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> If only we had threads to discuss the intricacies of doping in cycling and other sports....


...you'd have to be on something to participate in them .....


----------



## HF2300 (16 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> If only we had threads to discuss the intricacies of doping in cycling and other sports....



You'd only subvert them with your Jessica Fletcher obsession...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Sep 2016)

HF2300 said:


> You'd only subvert them with your Jessica Fletcher obsession...


She must be on so many meds at her age!


----------



## HF2300 (16 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> She must be on so many meds at her age!



Well, as long as she's got TUEs.


----------



## iLB (18 Sep 2016)

Anyone know what Walsh said in the ST today from behind the pay wall ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2016)

psmiffy said:


> Im ambivalent about the asthma thing - I shared a dorm at school with a guy who really suffered with asthma - he was the regional 100m champion at his age and a fabulous athlete at many other sports - his ability didnt come from his inhaler


Why can't I get this anti-asthma intramuscular injection. I've been nebulised, steroided et cetera but never been offered a jab...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2016)

iLB said:


> Anyone know what Walsh said in the ST today from behind the pay wall ?


"It looks bad, Brad" was the headline


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> "It looks bad, Brad" was the headline


@iLB 
There are details about the article here - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...world-anti-doping-agency-hackers-russian-leak


----------



## Bazzer (19 Sep 2016)

psmiffy said:


> Im ambivalent about the asthma thing - I shared a dorm at school with a guy who really suffered with asthma - he was the regional 100m champion at his age and a fabulous athlete at many other sports - his ability didnt come from his inhaler



My eldest was in a similar situation. At freestyle or butterfly from about 11 years old she was on the school swimming team and beat anyone in her year. By 15 she could beat anyone in the school, (male or female). Also on the school hockey team.
Seeing her swimming or training, no one would have believed the Lazarus moment my wife and I went through in A & E, when she was about 4 years old and a limp child gasping for breath came back to life through Ventolin and a nebuliser.
She still suffers from asthma. One of her triggers is cold air, but even with irregular training, put her in a pool and she will still out swim a lot of people.


----------



## HF2300 (19 Sep 2016)

iLB said:


> Anyone know what Walsh said in the ST today from behind the pay wall ?



Was going to follow this up but @deptfordmarmoset has beaten me to it! You can register free and get access to the article, but I didn't want to sell my soul to New International just to read David Walsh's prejudices.

Also articles about Wiggins specifically and putting the information into perspective (i.e., saying it tells us very little) here:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...doctor-geert-leinders-gave-banned-steroid-tue

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/15/fancy-bears-chris-froome-bradley-wiggins-tues-cycling


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2016)

A Team Sky spokesperson said "When we previously said no injections we meant no intravenous injections. Obviously. Intramuscular injections don't count. They are not proper injections." Or some such.

Dullards.


----------



## swansonj (19 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> A Team Sky spokesperson said "When we previously said no injections we meant no intravenous injections. Obviously. Intramuscular injections don't count. They are not proper injections." Or some such.
> 
> Dullards.


I agree. Did they think the TUE would never come out? If they, and Brad, had been upfront about them from the start, no-one would have batted an eyelid. Now, it looks as if they've been dishonest and have been hiding something. Well, they have, haven't they...


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Sep 2016)

Sky got on a lot of people's wicks with their rather holier than thou pronouncements. It may be PR payback time for them now, they are shown to be a bit murky grey, and the spectre of Leinders is hanging around like Banquo's ghost.

Actually I quite like that image. Brailsford, taking his place at a press conference, finds Geert Leinders sitting in his place, invisible to everyone else.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> I agree. Did they think the TUE would never come out? If they, and Brad, had been upfront about them from the start, no-one would have batted an eyelid. Now, it looks as if they've been dishonest and have been hiding something. Well, they have, haven't they...


Not a word in Brad's autobiography I'm told, by those who have read it. Not a single word. But he has nothing to hide, innit?


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Sep 2016)

1. Froome comes out of this well, which was cheering, given the abuse he's received in the French and Spanish press.
2. Wiggins is looking shady - although he says Leinders never touched him.
3. Charley Gaul, Maglia Rosa 1956. The good old days!
4. A loooong time ago (but way after '56) a former British Road Race Champion gave me something to help me get 20 miles home after a hard ride. I've never forgotten the sensation, nor come close to repeating it. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!


----------



## Bollo (19 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> 4. A loooong time ago (but way after '56) a former British Road Race Champion gave me something to help me get 20 miles home after a hard ride. I've never forgotten the sensation, nor come close to repeating it. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!


Thank your lucky stars @Fnaar is on a forum break.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (20 Sep 2016)

Froome good. Wiggins bad. Sky dodgy.
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/


----------



## Joffey (20 Sep 2016)

I bet Froome is loving this - he comes out of it well and his old chum Wiggo is getting a bashing


----------



## Crackle (20 Sep 2016)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Froome good. Wiggins bad. Sky dodgy.
> http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/



There's a certain amount of reputation protection going on from Swart so that he doesn't look bad having said one thing and now finding he needs to alter his position slightly and deflect criticism from himself. It's a kind of moral cowardice he's displaying.


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> There's a certain amount of reputation protection going on from Swart so that he doesn't look bad having said one thing and now finding he needs to alter his position slightly and deflect criticism from himself. It's a kind of moral cowardice he's displaying.


How so?
Not disagreeing, or picking a fight. I'm just a bit dim and I don't understand.


----------



## rich p (20 Sep 2016)

To get things in some kind of proportion...
...Wiggins took a hayfever treatment that is approved by WADA and everybody else, once a year, as a preventative precaution before cycling around the fields of France for 3 weeks.
The mistake was not being as transparent as they should. At least they applied for a tue which can't be said of Orica wrt Yates. They seem to have received little criticism for that gaffe


----------



## iLB (20 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> To get things in some kind of proportion...
> ...Wiggins took a hayfever treatment that is approved by WADA and everybody else, once a year, as a preventative precaution before cycling around the fields of France for 3 weeks.
> The mistake was not being as transparent as they should. At least they applied for a tue which can't be said of Orica wrt Yates. They seem to have received little criticism for that gaffe



Relative obscurity of course helps in the case of Yates. 

It's a very awkward one for Wiggins though, even if he believes no foul play... Given all that Sky have said about being whiter than white. Still nothing from Brailsford ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Sep 2016)

iLB said:


> Still nothing from Brailsford ?


Brailsford does not exist, he has never been, we have all been fooled.


----------



## Crackle (20 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> How so?
> Not disagreeing, or picking a fight. I'm just a bit dim and I don't understand.


I mean he's joining in with the overriding tide of criticism when he could perhaps be more circumspect and point out that these are TUE's, approved and signed off by the UCI and hold fire until both sides have had their say, especially given his previous approval of Sky, instead I feel he's distancing himself purely for his own reputational reasons. 

That does not mean I entirely disagree with him but I'm waiting until I've weighed up everything first. Then again I'm not a Sports Scientist tying my reputation to a particular bandwagon.


----------



## TheJDog (20 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> To get things in some kind of proportion...
> ...Wiggins took a hayfever treatment that is approved by WADA and everybody else, once a year, as a preventative precaution before cycling around the fields of France for 3 weeks.
> The mistake was not being as transparent as they should. At least they applied for a tue which can't be said of Orica wrt Yates. They seem to have received little criticism for that gaffe



According to Millar the treatment in question is also great for losing weight! And no one should be applying for a TUE as a preventative measure. That is entirely against the regulations.

It sounds to me like it should be on the banned and not eligible for a TUE list.


----------



## resal (20 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> To get things in some kind of proportion...
> ...Wiggins took a hayfever treatment that is approved by WADA and everybody else, once a year, as a preventative precaution before cycling around the fields of France for 3 weeks.
> The mistake was not being as transparent as they should. At least they applied for a tue which can't be said of Orica wrt Yates. They seem to have received little criticism for that gaffe



Let me fix that for you

Smoker Wiggins was given a shot of what most doctors do not ever give hayfever sufferers, but some doctors use as a last resort in the most serious cases. It has massive performance enhancing side effects and its use and abuse via TUEs has a fearsome reputation within and outside the pro peloton. The timing was critical, each time just before Wiggins main goal for the season and at exactly the right time to achieve the side effects its reputation demand it is used. Its use by Wiggins matched that time in his career when he achieved his best power to weight ratios.

Let me quote a bit of CIRC "One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice. He stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off, without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported performance gains. "

Let's put that CIRC quote in perspective. Say I was working with an elite athlete that had been in the pro peloton for 7 or 8 years and was a high achiever - ie already maxed out. Even if I set about a regime of a new diet and targeted exercise, a realistic target would be to achieve a 2- 3 % power weight improvement in six months. I could never consider achieving 7% by fair means. 7% in four weeks ! It is why it is so hard to beat dopers. 

A TUE is a tool to write off any positive from a test result. If you are going to lie about the TUE you are not going to worry about a trivial thing like it says the athlete will have a single injection. You would just get on and inject. Why bother drawing attention to what you are up to; the AAF is covered.

It's a tough revelation which is why Mr weathervane Millar is now pointing in the other direction. (Mr Millar is always committed to his own survival and profitability - doping pays well, it pays seriously well.) There is no hiding from it and all it means. It is not just Wiggins; it is those who were around him as well.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> There is no hiding from it and all it means.



I think this is entirely true. We've got to get real about TUEs. There should really be a no-needles policy for a start. Just like Wiggins claimed he was adhering to. We now know he is a liar. It is unfortunately that simple. Whatever his acheivements, he was dishonest. He might not have been as bad as someone like Armstrong, but he is not the new face of clean cycling. As for Sky, we've known for a long time that they do anything they can get away with, so long as it complies with the letter of the law. Any dubious drug that has not actually been banned. Any medicine for one condition which just happens to have desirable side-effects. And so on. They are certainly not any different from the other top teams in this regard. But that's the point that the hackers are trying to make. Sky is at it. British athletes are at it. They are not better, superior, more ethical. They are just professionals. And professional sport is, surprise, surprise, professional - and winning matters more than the myths of Corinthian, incorruptible, clean athletes.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (21 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> To get things in some kind of proportion...
> ...Wiggins took a hayfever treatment that is approved by WADA and everybody else, once a year, as a preventative precaution before cycling around the fields of France for 3 weeks.
> The mistake was not being as transparent as they should. At least they applied for a tue which can't be said of Orica wrt Yates. They seem to have received little criticism for that gaffe


jut a ban


----------



## iLB (21 Sep 2016)

Not even a passing mention on the GCN show released yesterday, feels like they might have run the story if it was Astana or Katusha riders ?


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> Let me fix that for you
> 
> Smoker Wiggins was given a shot of what most doctors do not ever give hayfever sufferers, but some doctors use as a last resort in the most serious cases. It has massive performance enhancing side effects and its use and abuse via TUEs has a fearsome reputation within and outside the pro peloton. The timing was critical, each time just before Wiggins main goal for the season and at exactly the right time to achieve the side effects its reputation demand it is used. Its use by Wiggins matched that time in his career when he achieved his best power to weight ratios.
> 
> ...


blimey!


----------



## Crackle (21 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> Let me fix that for you
> 
> Smoker Wiggins was given a shot of what most doctors do not ever give hayfever sufferers, but some doctors use as a last resort in the most serious cases. It has massive performance enhancing side effects and its use and abuse via TUEs has a fearsome reputation within and outside the pro peloton. The timing was critical, each time just before Wiggins main goal for the season and at exactly the right time to achieve the side effects its reputation demand it is used. Its use by Wiggins matched that time in his career when he achieved his best power to weight ratios.
> 
> ...


You're way ahead on the conclusion and interpretation stakes. That 7% loss is using Corticoids over 4 weeks not a single TUE. That said I don't believe that such medicines should be available through a TUE. Nicole Cooke said the same thing as Millar a while ago when Froome's Tour of Romandie TUE came out. If you're that ill, you won't be near the front of the race anyhow and using something like that prophylactically seems overkill and an abuse of the TUE system. Nevertherless it's on the WADA list and was UCI approved, the question is, should it be.


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> That 7% loss is using Corticoids over 4 weeks not a single TUE.


Am I wrong in thinking that Corticosteroids are only banned _in competition_? The TUE is only necessary while racing. Out of competition (when you will be doing your weight losing and stuff) no one needs a TUE as they are not banned out of competition.


----------



## Crackle (21 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> Am I wrong in thinking that Corticosteroids are only banned _in competition_? The TUE is only necessary while racing. Out of competition (when you will be doing your weight losing and stuff) no one needs a TUE as they are not banned out of competition.


Most steroids are banned in and out of competition but you'll find them on both lists, presumably because they can be used legitimately under a TUE system. I believe the one in question is a glucocorticoid and is banned in and out of competition but trying to make sense of the WADA list for a layman is pretty difficult. I did find a reference that said the amount for detection needs to be over 30ng/ml but I don't know how that converts to the dosage he received, possibly because it's held in suspension.

Edit: yes you appear to be correct that Corticosteroids don't require a TUE outside of competition, whatever that means, presumably between races. This what Wiki says...

_Glucocorticoids are a class of corticosteroids that affect the metabolism of carbohydrates, fat, and proteins, and regulate glycogen and blood pressure levels.They possess pronounced anti-inflammatory activity and cause alteration of connective tissue in response to injuries. The anti-inflammatory and connective tissue effects of glucocorticoids might mask injuries, leading to more serious injuries to athletes. Because of this and metabolic regulation effects, the administration of any glucorticoid orally, rectally, intraveniously, or intramuscularly is prohibited and requires a therapeutic use exemption. Topical uses of glucocorticoids does not require an exemption._


----------



## rich p (21 Sep 2016)

Strathlubnaig said:


> jut a ban


Yates received a ban but Orica got away scot-free.


----------



## rich p (21 Sep 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Wiggins claimed he was adhering to. We now know he is a liar.


Unfortunately this is true and there's no escaping it. Suggesting that intramuscular jabs are somehow not injections is disingenuous.
The mystery is why he didn't just say he'd had a hay-fever treatment in his book. That would have been honest and would have deflated all of this.


----------



## Crackle (21 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> Unfortunately this is true and there's no escaping it. Suggesting that intramuscular jabs are somehow not injections is disingenuous.
> The mystery is why he didn't just say he'd had a hay-fever treatment in his book. That would have been honest and would have deflated all of this.


It would. My benefit of the doubt theory goes something along the lines of being given a public flaying given the period he was on the ascendancy, so as they were doing nothing illegal, best to say nothing which now in hindsight looks bad. Froome received the same treatment when his TUE came out.


----------



## resal (21 Sep 2016)

They are banned both in and out of competition. The AAF from a tested sample will incur the normal sanction, ie a ban of two years for a first offense. However, the idiots that run the show decided that only "in competition" samples would be tested for this drug and samples taken OOC are not tested for it. Therefore, whilst a TUE should be generated for OOC use, nobody bothers because they know that an AAF will never be generated. This modification to the testing protocol was introduced about 6 years ago. So you have a nice little pact - "we wont look and don't you tell us that you are using it." Therefore, only somebody who believes in Santa would think that although the TUE was only for one injection, that was the limit of the dose applied.


----------



## Crackle (21 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> They are banned both in and out of competition. The AAF from a tested sample will incur the normal sanction, ie a ban of two years for a first offense. However, the idiots that run the show decided that only "in competition" samples would be tested for this drug and samples taken OOC are not tested for it. Therefore, whilst a TUE should be generated for OOC use, nobody bothers because they know that an AAF will never be generated. This modification to the testing protocol was introduced about 6 years ago. So you have a nice little pact - "we wont look and don't you tell us that you are using it." Therefore, only somebody who believes in Santa would think that although the TUE was only for one injection, that was the limit of the dose applied.


And it wouldn't red flag on the bio passport. I kinda doubt that.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> They are banned both in and out of competition. The AAF from a tested sample will incur the normal sanction, ie a ban of two years for a first offense. However, the idiots that run the show decided that only "in competition" samples would be tested for this drug and samples taken OOC are not tested for it. Therefore, whilst a TUE should be generated for OOC use, nobody bothers because they know that an AAF will never be generated. This modification to the testing protocol was introduced about 6 years ago. So you have a nice little pact - "we wont look and don't you tell us that you are using it." Therefore, only somebody who believes in Santa would think that although the TUE was only for one injection, that was the limit of the dose applied.


Soory - I'm struggling here. What defines 'out of competition'. In other words, if you are training three or four weeks before a GT are you 'out of competition'? Apologies if everybody else knows the answer to this.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Sep 2016)

I found this on the USADA site
_S9. Glucocorticoids

The systemic use of glucocorticoids (often called “steroids” by prescribers) is prohibited in-competition. WADA defines systematic routes as oral intake (taken by mouth and swallowed, e.g. Medrol Dose Pak), a systemic injection into the vein (IV) or muscle (IM), or rectal use.

Advisory:

An athlete who is prescribed oral, rectal, IV, or IM glucocorticoids may take these medications out-of-competition without submitting a TUE, as long as the prohibited substance has cleared their system prior to the time defined as “in-competition.” If an athlete needs to use these routes of administration shortly before or during competition, he or she must obtain a TUE.
The time it takes for glucocorticoids to clear from an athlete’s body depends on many variables and cannot be predicted by USADA. An athlete’s doctor or pharmacist can help determine the medication’s clearance time. Read the Clearance Time FAQ on the TUE page.
Injections of glucocorticoids around tendons, into joints, and epidural spaces (into the spine) are not prohibited, but an injection into a muscle is prohibited.
Inhalation of glucocorticoids (e.g. for asthma) is permitted.
Topical use of glucocorticoids (e.g., anti-rash cream, hemorrhoid creams used on the surface, etc.) are not prohibited. Be aware, however, that some hemorrhoid suppositories or inserted rectal creams contain glucocorticoids and are prohibited in-competition._​
On the WADA site S9 GLUCOCORTICOIDS appear under "prohibited in-competition" but do not appear under "prohibited at all times"


@dellzeqq As to the definition of "in-competition" I found this on the UKAD site
_
WADA define in-competition as “the period commencing 12 hours before competition… through to the end of such competition and the sample-collection process related to such competition”, unless stated otherwise by the rules of an IF or other relevant anti-doping organisation._​


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Sep 2016)

so - again, if this is completely wrong, tell me so......a rider could take glucocorticoids in the run up to a race without fear of sanction?


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> so - again, if this is completely wrong, tell me so......a rider could take glucocorticoids in the run up to a race without fear of sanction?


Well according to this blog from 2013 (Note, it's only a blog, not an official site, and it's 3 years old so caveat)

_Astonishingly, cortisone is in exactly the same category as Wada’s class of ‘stimulants’ which aren’t banned out of competition. Thus, you could be training like a man possessed, off your tits on cocaine, grinding your teeth to paste on Peruvian marching powder and, as long as it was out of your system on race day, there’s no risk of a positive. Yes, that’s right, if you are confronted with an out of competition test after days of training on a cocktail of cortisone, cocaine and amphetamines, you have nothing to worry about (except a little gossip perhaps), because cocaine and a long list of stimulants aren’t tested for – because none are prohibited out of competition. Train hard, race easy, right Wada?_​
He refers to "cortisone" and "glucocorticoids" and "corticosteroids" pretty much interchangeably in the blog. I don't know enough to know whether this is right.


----------



## Crackle (22 Sep 2016)

The Bio passport has a steroid module which can identify if exogenous steroids have been taken (urine sample). So any steroid taken as medication shows up. You would therefore expect any glucocorticoid usage, especially for a program of weight loss to flag and need explanation. I say expect because it's pretty difficult to find any detailed explanation of what the passport panels look for and discuss.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Sep 2016)

I think we could summarise this as 'The rules are daft, Wiggins apparently stayed within them, but told fibs about doing so'!


----------



## iLB (23 Sep 2016)

Apparently Brad is going on the Marr show on Sunday.


----------



## Dogtrousers (23 Sep 2016)

iLB said:


> Apparently Brad is going on the Marr show on Sunday.


It's Oprah all over again. But a rather downbeat British version.
You've got to hand it to the Americans, they do some things better than us.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's Oprah all over again. But a rather downbeat British version.
> You've got to hand it to the Americans, they do some things better than us.


Cheating for one


----------



## marinyork (24 Sep 2016)

resal said:


> Let me fix that for you
> 
> Smoker Wiggins was given a shot of what most doctors do not ever give hayfever sufferers, but some doctors use as a last resort in the most serious cases. It has massive performance enhancing side effects and its use and abuse via TUEs has a fearsome reputation within and outside the pro peloton. The timing was critical, each time just before Wiggins main goal for the season and at exactly the right time to achieve the side effects its reputation demand it is used. Its use by Wiggins matched that time in his career when he achieved his best power to weight ratios.



Kenalog intramuscular injections were a lot more common in the past (5-10 years ago). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but one of the places I read one of the bits you quote further down actually mentions/hints at what I've just said so for completeness I find your post a bit odd for neglecting to say this. In 2016, yes, the kenalog looks completely batshit crazy. In 2011 when it was given it is less so and looks shady. If it was another formulation of triamcinolone then I wouldn't find it that suspicious though. Some might question today whether the injection was the sanest thing to do from a health of the patient point of view.


----------



## coffeejo (24 Sep 2016)

Can't recall if anyone has mentioned this but for right or wrong, Wiggo's image will be forever tarnished now that the mainstream media agree asking questions, including many of the points already addressed in this thread.

_Sir Bradley Wiggins: Former team doctor 'surprised' at drug prescription_
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37456623

I'm slowly changing my mind about the whole thing, largely because if what Brad didn't say (his autobiography etc) than what he did. I accept he didn't break any actual rules, but it does seem as though the spirit of the rules has been trashed.


----------



## HF2300 (24 Sep 2016)

I've got to be honest, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I find it difficult to get excited about what Wiggins may or may not have said in his book. Being realistic, it's unusual for even confessional biographies to give blow by blow details of every TUE, injection, whatever. 'My Time' was just a puff piece rushed out to capitalise on his TdF and Olympic victories and the atmosphere at the time, largely written not by Wiggins but by William Fotheringham, and with quite egregious errors and poor writing in places; not something I'd take as the last word in verbal precision or historical accuracy.


----------



## uclown2002 (24 Sep 2016)

HF2300 said:


> I've got to be honest, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation I find it difficult to get excited about what Wiggins may or may not have said in his book. Being realistic, it's unusual for even confessional biographies to give blow by blow details of every TUE, injection, whatever. 'My Time' was just a puff piece rushed out to capitalise on his TdF and Olympic victories and the atmosphere at the time, largely written not by Wiggins but by William Fotheringham, and with quite egregious errors and poor writing in places; not something I'd take as the last word in verbal precision or historical accuracy.


 Fortunately, we don't have to rely solely on his book, to realise the whole thing stinks. There is plenty of other stuff out there.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Sep 2016)

Where's Brailsford?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Sep 2016)

I do think too much attention is being given to Wiggins; the approach taken by Sky to all their riders will be exactly the same, they'll play within the rules but push it as far as is possible for everyone. As will every other team. Some riders and teams will push it beyond the rules.

Is that really "news" to anyone?


----------



## HF2300 (25 Sep 2016)

uclown2002 said:


> Fortunately, we don't have to rely solely on his book, to realise the whole thing stinks. There is plenty of other stuff out there.



Of which whether Wiggins is or is not a liar seems a minor sideshow say the least. Far more important is that teams will always run to the letter of the law, not necessarily the spirit. That being the case, how the TUE regs work is far more important and is slightly being lost in all the noise about Wiggins and Sky.

We can't know the ins and outs of why Wiggins, or any rider, may have been prescribed a particular drug. I can find plenty of cycling related links about performance enhancing and doctors jumping on the bandwagon to say Triamcinolone should not have been prescribed, I can also find plenty of learned papers that suggest there may not be a perfomance benefit, or that prescription may be justified in various circumstances. I have no idea which is right, and I'm willing to bet most of those commenting, particularly the more rabid ones, have no real idea either.

What do know is that the circumstances of that prescription must have been examined by UCI / WADA representatives who must, as stated in UCI regs, examine that prescription to check that it is justified and that there is no potential performance increase; and we know that WADA must make a judgement about the perfomance benefits or otherwise of drugs they list. Whether it's Sky or not, as @Marmion suggests teams in pretty much any sport will play to the letter of the law and will push the boundaries as much as possible to gain a competitive advantage.

The real issue seems to me that if there is to be a TUE system it must be regulated and run in a way that compels teams to behave in a way that upholds the spirit as well as the letter of the law. If Triamcinolone, or any other drug, has the clear performance benefits suggested, the question is why is it available under a TUE system and why assessors approve prescriptions for it, not just for Sky but for any team.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Sep 2016)

Good post, but ...


HF2300 said:


> if there is to be a TUE system it must be regulated and run in a way that compels teams to behave in a way that upholds the spirit as well as the letter of the law.


You just can't do that. Your only weapon of compulsion is the letter of the law. You can't compel them to behave within the spirit, that's the whole point of there being a difference between the two.


----------



## HF2300 (25 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> Good post, but ... You just can't do that. Your only weapon of compulsion is the letter of the law. You can't compel them to behave within the spirit, that's the whole point of there being a difference between the two.



I think that misses what I was saying. The point is that the letter and spirit should coincide_._ Differences are not deliberately built in, but arise because of the framing and operation of the regulations. If a situation has arisen where riders are able to take advantage of performance enhancing benefits of a drug available on TUE, then questions arise about how the regulations are framed and operated which are larger than any questions about a single rider or team.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Sep 2016)

HF2300 said:


> The point is that the letter and spirit should coincide_._


 I was being a bit pedantic.

Whatever the letter, you'll find people trying to wheedle beyond it, and others stating that the law is not sufficient and that some who are within the law are outside the spirit (which, being undefined, they are free to redefine)


----------



## Crackle (25 Sep 2016)

So now we know why Sky never signed up to the MPCC, never mind Brailsfords bollocks speak on a unified approach, any corticosteroids would mean eight days out of racing.


----------



## Andrew_P (25 Sep 2016)

Same as Tramadol really can't remember whose book it was but if I recall correctly they went to the car to pick up bottles and tramadol with caffeine tabs to counter the drowsiness. Now I have inadvertently ridden an hour after a Codeine tablet and it felt really good (once I got going) and it took me a while to figure out what had changed let alone taking two or the next level up Tramadol.


----------



## geopat (25 Sep 2016)

The timing of the TUEs says all. The regulations are in place for those who desperately need medication at a particular time and Wiggins did not.

He cheated, end off, in my book.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Sep 2016)

geopat said:


> The timing of the TUEs says all. The regulations are in place for those who desperately need medication at a particular time and Wiggins did not.
> 
> He cheated, end off, in my book.


"Desperately"?


----------



## Crackle (25 Sep 2016)

I'm just wondering if anyone commenting has asthma or blocked airways of some sort. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this, if you do you'd realize how it affects you. I developed mild asthma as an adult so I have a clear memory of the difference. In addition, by dint of good fortune and extra special genetics, I can't breathe through my nose whilst exercising. Most of the time it's fine but the times when it isn't is when you are really working hard and then you become acutely conscious that you are breathing like a steam train. Being able to breathe normally rather than desperately struggling to get your breath when everyone else is now talking and breathing normally is not an advantage.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Sep 2016)

How about we just take away his knighthood, dust things down and move on?


----------



## themosquitoking (25 Sep 2016)

Careful, he killed a dragon to get that.


----------



## geopat (25 Sep 2016)

His "level playing field" justification is very unfortunate and as poor a choice of words as he could have made.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Sep 2016)

geopat said:


> Yes, as an asthma sufferer I would consider this medication desperate. I have pretty severe asthma and this type of medication is unknown to me but granted, I am far from being an elite athlete about to take part in one of the toughest tests in sport.


Should the measure not be "genuinely" required medication? And the person to make that decision would be a doctor?


----------



## oldroadman (25 Sep 2016)

geopat said:


> The timing of the TUEs says all. The regulations are in place for those who desperately need medication at a particular time and Wiggins did not.
> 
> He cheated, end off, in my book.


Well let's all just jump quickly to conclusions shall we?


----------



## geopat (25 Sep 2016)

Yes perhaps it should but you get the drift. 

That type of medication would be for acute symptoms in exceptional circumstances and its too much of a coincidence for those symptoms to occur before 3 big races imho.


----------



## Louch (26 Sep 2016)

A dr said he needed jag, he took jag. Sky seem to be Intentent on throwing under any bus but theirs


----------



## oldroadman (26 Sep 2016)

Louch said:


> A dr said he needed jag, he took jag. Sky seem to be Intentent on throwing under any bus but theirs


Which is in English????


----------



## Dogtrousers (26 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Which is in English????


What I think it means is that Sky are leaving BW to face the music alone, when he did not act alone, hoping that it will blow over with damage to BW's reputation but not Sky's. Hence "throwing him under the bus" - ie making him the fall guy.

There's a decent piece along these lines in the Guardian here

Personally, ever since reading Walsh's sick-making puff piece "Inside Team Sky", where everyone down to the team's saintly sock-launderer was a totally comitted anti doper and wouldn't dream of any kind of underhand sock-washing, I've been waiting for something like this to come out.


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> What I think it means is that Sky are leaving BW to face the music alone, when he did not act alone, hoping that it will blow over with damage to BW's reputation but not Sky's. Hence "throwing him under the bus" - ie making him the fall guy.
> 
> There's a decent piece along these lines in the Guardian here
> 
> Personally, ever since reading Walsh's sick-making puff piece "Inside Team Sky", where everyone down to the team's saintly sock-launderer was a totally comitted anti doper and wouldn't dream of any kind of underhand sock-washing, I've been waiting for something like this to come out.


The alternative explanation is that of patient confidentiality. Sky can't talk about this unless Wiggins gives them the nod and perhaps he hasn't, given that they parted on cool terms shall we say.

I think I've decided I am unsuprised by this. I'd cooled on Wiggins some time ago so I find I'm not even disappointed by him. Did he need this injection, I find it hard to believe he did. Did he know what he was doing, I suspect so. Did it help performance, there I'm of a mixed view as so much depends on individual response and frankly I don't put much stock in Rasmussen or Millar when it comes to talking about doping. Should it be available under the TUE, absolutely not, which is why the MPCC voluntary code does not allow it.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Well let's all just jump quickly to conclusions shall we?



No, let's stick to expert medical opinion. What is the prevailing medical view on what Wiggins took?


----------



## Dogtrousers (26 Sep 2016)

There's nothing much to be gained about agonising over the Wiggins case. He didn't break (or is highly unlikely to have broken) any rules - Sky are too cute for that - so apart from thumbing our noses at him there's nothing that can be done.

A more important question is whether the TUE regulations as they stand, and the regs about corticoids are sound, and if not, what should be done about them?


----------



## ColinJ (26 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> A more important question is whether the TUE regulations as they stand, and the regs about corticoids are sound, and if not, what should be done about them?


Accept that confidentiality about TUEs is something that pro athletes have to give up, like the right to pee without someone staring at you! So - publish all drug use under TUEs.

Preferably, do not allow TUEs for drugs which give known performance advantages. If there are real health issues, then allow their use in those cases but suspend the athletes from competition until the advantage has passed.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Sep 2016)

ColinJ said:


> Accept that confidentiality about TUEs is something that pro athletes have to give up, like the right to pee without someone staring at you! So - publish all drug use under TUEs.
> 
> Preferably, do not allow TUEs for drugs which give known performance advantages. If there are real health issues, then allow their use in those cases but suspend the athletes from competition until the advantage has passed.



That was the MPCC stance, right? No competition for 8 weeks if you've had to use corticosteroids. The problem is that there is also a training advantage. You can train harder not just perform better.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Sep 2016)

Sir Dave breaks his silence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...-breaks-silence-on-bradley-wigginss-tue---it/


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> Sir Dave breaks his silence
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...-breaks-silence-on-bradley-wigginss-tue---it/



Brailsford interview to be played on 5Live between 7 and 8pm.


----------



## swansonj (26 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> There's nothing much to be gained about agonising over the Wiggins case. He didn't break (or is highly unlikely to have broken) any rules - Sky are too cute for that - *so apart from thumbing our noses at him there's nothing that can be done.*
> 
> A more important question is whether the TUE regulations as they stand, and the regs about corticoids are sound, and if not, what should be done about them?


not strictly true. I, for one, have to decide whether or not to tear up the ticket I bought for the Wiggo Farewell Tour at the London Six Day.


----------



## Crackle (26 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> not strictly true. I, for one, have to decide whether or not to tear up the ticket I bought for the Wiggo Farewell Tour at the London Six Day.


Is one of those days a TUEsday?

I see placard potential.


----------



## oldroadman (26 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> not strictly true. I, for one, have to decide whether or not to tear up the ticket I bought for the Wiggo Farewell Tour at the London Six Day.


And miss the racing on account of one person who has broken no regulation, but suddenly is a pariah? Oh how the Brits love their heroes to have feet of clay.
Nose, face, spite, cut off to. No one will notice one less in the seats anyway. Just go and enjoy the bike racing!


----------



## Stonechat (27 Sep 2016)

We mustn't forget that these Russian leaks are part of a campaign to shift the debate away from the systematic flouting of the rules byy the Russian machine.
It goes to show how far we have come from the Armstrong era (apart from the Russians that is)


----------



## swansonj (27 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> ....No one will notice one less in the seats anyway. Just go and enjoy the bike racing!


Hmmm. "No one will notice one less in the seats" has an unfortunate echo of "everyone is doing it"...


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Sep 2016)

I heard the first half of the Brailsford interview. He seemed to be resting on the distinction between 'use' and 'abuse' (in the manner of Wiggins when questioned by Marr) and yet there wasn't any explanation or follow-up on what that distinction was. Did things improve in the second half?


----------



## Hacienda71 (27 Sep 2016)

My view is if you had exercise induced asthma and you were about to enter one of the toughest sporting events in the world and your team doctor said ok you can use an inhaler but the strongest medication for this is a steroid injection, but you will need a tue then that is what you go for. It was declared to the UCI as they require, if it seems suspicious then the UCI should be the ones saying as much.


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Sep 2016)

I can't be bothered to read the thread...whoever has compared Wiggins to Russian Olympians can award themselves the False Equivalence medal.


----------



## HF2300 (27 Sep 2016)

Loads o' quotes!



Dogtrousers said:


> Whatever the letter, you'll find people trying to wheedle beyond it, and others stating that the law is not sufficient and that some who are within the law are outside the spirit (which, being undefined, they are free to redefine)



Well, I'm not thinking it'll be easy, but if there is a benefit to this debate, it might be that the regulation and operation of the TUE system is looked at to see if there are issues that need to be addressed.



geopat said:


> The timing of the TUEs says all. The regulations are in place for those who desperately need medication at a particular time and Wiggins did not ...



But without knowing Wiggins' medical history, condition at the time and the circumstances surrounding the decision you can't possibly know this.



Marmion said:


> Should the measure not be "genuinely" required medication? And the person to make that decision would be a doctor?



I thought that was the measure (4.1a "The prohibited substance is needed to treat ... a medical condition such that the rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the prohibited substance were to be withdrawn). It is the rider who's responsible for applying via ADAMS, although they do have to submit full medical history and records and a statement by a qualified doctor to say that the substance is needed. The one thing I can't find is any regulation about the make-up of the TUE committee or whether they have to have a medical background.



geopat said:


> That type of medication would be for acute symptoms in exceptional circumstances and its too much of a coincidence for those symptoms to occur before 3 big races imho.



TUEs are for chronic as well as acute conditions. If a rider had a chronic condition with acute episodes caused by intense exercise, surely a need for medication for those acute phases, and those acute phases being triggered by the most arduous exercise, is exactly what you'd expect?



Crackle said:


> Did it help performance, there I'm of a mixed view as so much depends on individual response and frankly I don't put much stock in Rasmussen or Millar when it comes to talking about doping.



It seems to me Millar etc., however genuine, can only talk from their own experience as they are not medical people; it's been suggested, for example, that the effect Millar reports might have been a result of a combination of substances.



Flying_Monkey said:


> No, let's stick to expert medical opinion. What is the prevailing medical view on what Wiggins took?



I'm not sure you can say. Having looked at research as well as comment around this current debate, there is a lot of contradiction as I mentioned in an earlier post. Given that, the key point must be that it's a banned substance, so at some point the authorities have decided that it has the potential to have a performance enhancing effect whether it did or did not in Wiggins' case



Dogtrousers said:


> A more important question is whether the TUE regulations as they stand, and the regs about corticoids are sound, and if not, what should be done about them?



TMN to me, I think, or was that raised further upthread?  



Stonechat said:


> We mustn't forget that these Russian leaks are part of a campaign to shift the debate away from the systematic flouting of the rules byy the Russian machine.





Tin Pot said:


> I can't be bothered to read the thread...whoever has compared Wiggins to Russian Olympians can award themselves the False Equivalence medal.



Exactly.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Sep 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> I can't be bothered to read the thread...whoever has compared Wiggins to Russian Olympians can award themselves the False Equivalence medal.



Here's the podcast of his interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0494ksx 

Brailsford casts doubt on the performance enhancing properties from about 09:30. On 'transparency' he is embarrassing. At 14:00 he is all over the shop. His slapdown of McQuaid is brilliant, and he does make a decent case for Sky's processes, but it's all a bit abstract. Interesting that Sky have, apparently, had only 13 TUEs ever - of which 3 were for Wiggins and 2 were for Froome. 

I think the problem for me is this.....if Brailsford, who was the big cheese in BC at the time, was relying on a distinction between use and abuse without making clear what that distinction is...............then what does that say about BC?

Taken overall, BC's success on the track since 2007 has been quite bonkerstastically extraordinary. I can only imagine that Fancy Bears are hacking their way in to the BC computer.


----------



## gordonrgw (27 Sep 2016)

Callum Skinner; from The Scotsman..

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycli...o-prove-to-people-my-asthma-is-real-1-4241059


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2016)

gordonrgw said:


> Callum Skinner; from The Scotsman..
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycli...o-prove-to-people-my-asthma-is-real-1-4241059


Excellent article and a reminder that people's needs are real. I know someone with a Cortisol deficiency who need to take Cortisone when he's ill. It's real, diagnosed and tested by a consultant endocronologist and yet he competes at a high level as well. I would like to see Wiggins release a story like that though.


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Sep 2016)

David Walsh, I was duped by Sky. 
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...ky-now-brailsford-will-regret-inviting-me-in/

I'm kind of losing interest in this. @Crackle I read an article on exercise induced asthma yesterday, explaining how the prevalence goes up in endurance sports with a particular stress on breathing, so lots of (say) swimmers get it but fewer (say) boxers. But I am wearying of this and can't be arsed to find the link.


----------



## EnPassant (27 Sep 2016)

I don't think I fully understand TUE's really*. If you aren't fit without using drugs, you don't compete? 
This appears too simplistic so there must be an error in my thinking somewhere or else they wouldn't have TUE's.

Also a lot of what makes elite athletes elite in the first place is an accident of birth isn't it? High VO2 max, higher proportion of fast twitch muscles and so on? So how come if you are lucky enough to have those (as examples) but unfortunately Asthma (again example) you aren't just "one of the rest of us who isn't elite?". 
I assume this must be because asthma is considered a disease whilst not having a high VO2max isn't. But it's a line I'm finding difficult to figure out precisely in my head. And asthma/vo2max are only examples of course, there are others.


*I'm fairly new to this august forum and the type of information it delivers. It's made me consider things I never had before in several areas (and no, I'm not taking the piddle, I've learned more here about a lot of things than from the media in years).


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Sep 2016)

User3094 said:


> A nail in Bradleys coffin?.....
> 
> View attachment 145639


Froome to Dimension Data?


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> David Walsh, I was duped by Sky.
> http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...ky-now-brailsford-will-regret-inviting-me-in/
> 
> I'm kind of losing interest in this. @Crackle I read an article on exercise induced asthma yesterday, explaining how the prevalence goes up in endurance sports with a particular stress on breathing, so lots of (say) swimmers get it but fewer (say) boxers. But I am wearying of this and can't be arsed to find the link.


I think I may have read it. I don't particularly subscribe to the sudden rise in asthmatics conspiracy. Asthma is real, it's far better understood today than even 10 years ago. Therefore you have people given a much more accurate diagnosis, where in the past it might have been missed or dismissed. You also have a real rise in poor air quality, in particular there are some significant links and research on the effects of diesel particulates on asthma and heart disease.

As for Walsh I don't know what to think yet. he was a bit giddy after Armstrong and it seems he too is being drawn into a bit of reputational protectionism.


----------



## rich p (27 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> I think I may have read it. I don't particularly subscribe to the sudden rise in asthmatics conspiracy. Asthma is real, it's far better understood today than even 10 years ago. Therefore you have people given a much more accurate diagnosis, where in the past it might have been missed or dismissed. You also have a real rise in poor air quality, in particular there are some significant links and research on the effects of diesel particulates on asthma and heart disease.
> 
> As for Walsh I don't know what to think yet. he was a bit giddy after Armstrong and it seems he too is being drawn into a bit of reputational protectionism.


Walsh is an opportunistic tit.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (27 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> And miss the racing on account of one person who has broken no regulation, but suddenly is a pariah? Oh how the Brits love their heroes to have feet of clay.
> Nose, face, spite, cut off to. No one will notice one less in the seats anyway. Just go and enjoy the bike racing!


but if Wiggins was a Spaniard or an Italian you would be calling for his head.


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> As for Walsh I don't know what to think yet. he was a bit giddy after Armstrong and it seems he too is being drawn into a bit of _*reputational protectionism*_.


Nicely put.
There's a condition that causes cycling journos to go bonkers and start spouting incomprehensible rubbish. It's called Kimmage Syndrome, I think Walsh is coming down with it.


----------



## booze and cake (27 Sep 2016)

Cycling in lack of credibility shocker.....never....meh. I've given up having any credibility for clean cycling, in its current state its so far removed from riding on 'pan y agua' that I can't relate to it anymore, or idolise these people as heroes, when it just looks like a freak show and battle of who has the best Doctors.

Yes I agree the UCI is at fault, it has been for years and I've not seen any evidence it has changed its ways for the better, and so if the guidance/enforcement from the top is lacking, then the whole thing is like a house of cards.

Sky may not have technically broken any rules, but its actions are definitely not in the spirit of clean cycling. Is this the real reason Sky did'nt join the MPCC? If marginal gains have been extended to abusing the TUE system in the hope an intravenus asthma treatment may give a slight performance edge over another non injected asthma treatment, then this just confirms my battle of the Doctor assessment.

Sky likes to give the impression of being open and a champion of clean cycling, but it seems more about creating an illusion of clean cycling to me. I'm paraphrasing here but it sounds like ' oh no siree, Sir Brad has never had injections.......oh apart from those ones we did'nt tell you about, we were rather hoping you would'nt find out about that (blame the bitter Russians!), but they are only for asthma, no really they were'...If they were'nt considered performance enhancing why was this method chosen I ask myself.

When we find out Sky are not being as open as we thought, every response it filtered through the PR/legal department, there's an army of lawyers beavering away trying to justify these dodgy practices. Is there any cycling involved in cycling these days? Its not so much the fox being in charge of the hen house, as much as all the hens are dead, all we are left with is foxes.

And Froome's quote about not being one for breaking rules is a bit rich, the fact he hacked into the Kenyan cycling federation email account to enter himself into the 2006 World Champs in Salzburg shows a pretty blatant disregard for rules if you ask me.

Finally lets not forget Sky is a Murdoch enterprise, hell will have frozen over long before I expect any branch of that organisation to demonstrate even the tiniest shred of moral fibre. I'm just off to snort a load of coke and amphetamines, its for my hay fever it is, honest. Watch me smash those segments this afternoon.


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2016)

rich p said:


> Walsh is an opportunistic tit.


Perhaps, he deserves some slack for Armstrong as did Kimmage. Kimmage has used all his up though and if Walsh goes around saying, they'll be sorry they messed with me, too much, he might run out of slack too.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Sep 2016)

gordonrgw said:


> Callum Skinner; from The Scotsman..
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycli...o-prove-to-people-my-asthma-is-real-1-4241059





Crackle said:


> Excellent article and a reminder that people's needs are real. I know someone with a Cortisol deficiency who need to take Cortisone when he's ill. It's real, diagnosed and tested by a consultant endocronologist and yet he competes at a high level as well. I would like to see Wiggins release a story like that though.



Wiggins releases photo evidence of his kitten allergy pre-Tour


----------



## rich p (27 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> Perhaps, he deserves some slack for Armstrong as did Kimmage. Kimmage has used all his up though and if Walsh goes around saying, they'll be sorry they messed with me, too much, he might run out of slack too.


It wasn't a cogent argument I put forward, but to be honest, I can't be arsed to counter the massive over-reaction to this story by those on here and elsewhere.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Sep 2016)

Callum Skinner's response seems entirely reasonable and legitimate:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/skinner-releases-medical-records-following-tue-leak/


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> Wiggins releases photo evidence of his kitten allergy pre-Tour


That's it. They should dispense with the bio passport and just place a cat on each rider. If it hisses, they're guilty.


----------



## midlife (27 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> That's it. They should dispense with the bio passport and just place a cat on each rider. If it hisses, they're guilty.



Cat scan ?

Shaun


----------



## Crackle (27 Sep 2016)

midlife said:


> Cat scan ?
> 
> Shaun


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (27 Sep 2016)

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, wiggins has a TUE fully authorised by the UCI and sanctioned by them. 
So he has done zip all wrong?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Sep 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Forgive me if I'm missing something here, wiggins has a TUE fully authorised by the UCI and sanctioned by them.
> So he has done zip all wrong?


You've obviously missed the kittens


----------



## midlife (27 Sep 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Forgive me if I'm missing something here, wiggins has a TUE fully authorised by the UCI and sanctioned by them.
> So he has done zip all wrong?



In my eyes it's got to have the potential akin to tax avoidance......that doesn't break any rules but is it right?

Shaun


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Sep 2016)

midlife said:


> In my eyes it's got to have the potential akin to tax avoidance......that doesn't break any rules but is it right?
> 
> Shaun



Indeed, in every sport there are a bunch of halfwits that have their own private notion of the Spirit of the Sport that they want to foist on the rest of the world. For these people The Rules are simply Not Enough. 

You usually can tell them from the rest of the population by the torch in one hand and pitchfork in the other.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (27 Sep 2016)

But still hasn't broke any rules?


----------



## dragon72 (27 Sep 2016)

I don't like the grey area aspect of this either.
I take a hard line on this. I think that *U*se of medication with performance enhancing qualities, *T*herapeutic or otherwise, shouldn't be given *E*xemptions. If you're too sick to compete without them, you're too sick to compete. Sorry. Stay at home, get better and come back when you are able to train and compete without performance enhancing drugs.
I don't like Wiggins talking about level playing fields either. Reminds me of the riders and their apologists who have said that the only reason they doped was to be able to keep up with the dopers. 
Froome is right. Grey areas are not good.


----------



## rich p (27 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


>


This is getting like Facebook!


----------



## Strathlubnaig (27 Sep 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Callum Skinner's response seems entirely reasonable and legitimate:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/skinner-releases-medical-records-following-tue-leak/


Fair enough from the lad, Wiggins on the other hand is at the opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## keithmac (27 Sep 2016)

I agree with some of the previous posts, if you're too ill to compete you should sit it out..

It appears you're hard pressed to find a "clean" rider (which is really bad for those who go by the spirit of the rules).

Surely the more that comes out the further into the gutter professional cycling sinks?.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Sep 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Indeed, in every sport there are a bunch of halfwits that have their own private notion of the Spirit of the Sport that they want to foist on the rest of the world. For these people The Rules are simply Not Enough.
> 
> You usually can tell them from the rest of the population by the torch in one hand and pitchfork in the other.



Thanks for your considered and polite response. Do call again.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Sep 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> But still hasn't broke any rules?


he's deceived us, the Great British Cycling Public because he said He Didn't Have Injections and He Had Injections. In his Bradley Bottom. And We Are Not Happy.

And we've every right not to be happy.

And Dave Brailsford has come across as a stumbling hypocrite, which is also not making us happy.



dragon72 said:


> I don't like Wiggins talking about level playing fields either.


I think the use of 'level playing field' (repeated by Brailsford) is about as stupid as it gets. Straight out of the Lance Armstrong School of PR.

In all seriousness I never, ever expected this. That might strike some of you as naive (and, given Sky's choice of physicians, you're entitled to think that) but I genuinely thought Wiggins was a straight talking chap.


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> In all seriousness I never, ever expected this. That might strike some of you as naive (and, given Sky's choice of physicians, you're entitled to thing that) but I genuinely thought Wiggins was a straight talking chap.


 You surprise me. Stretching the rules up to breaking point was exactly what I expected from Sky. Which is why I'm rather unmoved by this. So the Wiggster told some porkies and was a bit underhand. Meh. 'Tis what I expect from competitive sports people. Brailsford I've always thought was well shifty, and so it has proved. 

If I want honesty with the sweat and toil I'll look elsewhere at things where there isn't so much dosh at stake. Like me, heroically riding round Kent until my poor knees hurt. I'm a star. (And there's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking that much coffee!)


----------



## ColinJ (28 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> You surprise me. Stretching the rules up to breaking point was exactly what I expected from Sky. Which is why I'm rather unmoved by this. So the Wiggster told some porkies and was a bit underhand. Meh. 'Tis what I expect from competitive sports people. Brailsford I've always thought was well shifty, and so it has proved.
> 
> If I want honesty with the sweat and toil I'll look elsewhere at things where there isn't so much dosh at stake. Like me, heroically riding round Kent until my poor knees hurt. I'm a star. (And there's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking that much coffee!)


All I can say is ... _No More Heroes!_


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Sep 2016)

ColinJ said:


> All I can say is ... _No More Heroes!_


What ever happened to ... Bradley Wiggins?
He got a sneeze-jab
That made his arse burn.
What ever happened to the heroes?


----------



## Twizit (28 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> Stretching the rules up to breaking point was exactly what I expected from Sky. Which is why I'm rather unmoved by this. So the Wiggster told some porkies and was a bit underhand. Meh. 'Tis what I expect from competitive sports people.



I think this sums up the last 10 pages of this "thing" for me.


----------



## oldroadman (28 Sep 2016)

swansonj said:


> Hmmm. "No one will notice one less in the seats" has an unfortunate echo of "everyone is doing it"...


That's an opinion you may hold. I did not say that. How one phrase in quotes correlates to the other in quotes I don't see, but anyone can have an opinion and express it as they wish.


----------



## swansonj (28 Sep 2016)

oldroadman said:


> That's an opinion you may hold. I did not say that. How one phrase in quotes correlates to the other in quotes I don't see, but anyone can have an opinion and express it as they wish.


The parallel is in my mind; I'm not seeking to claim it has any absolute compelling force. But for me the parallel is between a pro cyclist saying "everyone else is taking drugs; if I don't, the doped races will still take place, the only difference is I would miss out, so I might as well dope too", and a spectator (me) saying " the event will go ahead anyway; if I don't go, the only difference is that I miss out, so I might as well go too".


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Sep 2016)

A typically good and thorough piece by Inner Ring which dispells some of the 'move along, nothing to see here' arguments... 

http://inrng.com/2016/09/wiggins-tue-sday/#more-29972


----------



## rich p (28 Sep 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> A typically good and thorough piece by Inner Ring which dispells some of the 'move along, nothing to see here' arguments...
> 
> http://inrng.com/2016/09/wiggins-tue-sday/#more-29972


I think it's one of their least persuasive pieces, to be honest. It says nothing damning or anything that hasn't been already said, unless I've missed something.


----------



## Crackle (30 Sep 2016)

A much fuller explanation in the Guardian today.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues

I have to say, that all of that rings true with me. I have rhinitis from allergies and asthma. I do the sprays and the inhalers, I feel the tiredness and I suffer on bad days and I don't really mention it anymore as it just sounds tiresome to people.


----------



## Buddfox (30 Sep 2016)

The thing I still struggle with is what arises from this paragraph:

'Wiggins said he had asked what he was being administered, and he had been “fully aware of this drug and the taboo surrounding it all … the misuse and the abuse of this drug in the past”. He added: “It was for a very specific thing … to treat something that was historically a problem for me and could be quite a serious problem for me. I’d become a potential favourite for the Tour de France, or certainly to get on the podium. I’d returned to the form I was in in 2009 and the only thing that could really stop me from achieving that was if I struggled with allergies during the race. It happens.”'

If that's the case, shouldn't the response be "Sorry, Bradley, but I just don't think you're destined to be a Grand Tour winner. It's a shame, but some people just don't have the physiology for it." rather than giving him a banned performance enhancing drug (under whatever regulations or approvals)?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (30 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> A much fuller explanation in the Guardian today.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues
> 
> I have to say, that all of that rings true with me. I have rhinitis from allergies and asthma. I do the sprays and the inhalers, I feel the tiredness and I suffer on bad days and I don't really mention it anymore as it just sounds tiresome to people.


Crax old chap, we get that you need medication and that - but yours ain't similar circumstances as Brad's situation...


----------



## Crackle (30 Sep 2016)

Marmion said:


> Crax old chap, we get that you need medication and that - but yours ain't similar circumstances as Brad's situation...


Well I didn't say I agreed with it. I don't think it should be available under a TUE. I'm just saying that finally, his explanation of his symptoms rings true, even if the explanation for the solution doesn't.


----------



## Dave Davenport (30 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> I genuinely thought Wiggins was a straight talking chap.



Yep, me too.


----------



## swansonj (1 Oct 2016)

The latestGuardian interview cheers me up. To some extent. 

I've always like Bradley (much more that say Froome) precisely because he is flawed, his flaws make him human, he isn't a perfect winning machine, he has ups and downs that stem from his personality. His detailed account is consistent with that and, if true, casts him a much better light - his mistake was not having second guessed the machine around him, stepped outside it and taken an overview, rather than consciously setting out to manipulate the rules himself. 

Of course, this could all be artificial, a very clever and professionally crafted PR strategy. But I'm reminded of what the judge said in the Plebgate libel case about the copper being too thick to invent the story. Somehow I just can't see Bradley seeing through quite such an artificial message.


----------



## Hacienda71 (6 Oct 2016)

Mr Locke having his say on the BBC today whilst still denying his guilt as a doper.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (6 Oct 2016)

all kicking off again... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...investigate-Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Team-Sky.html


----------



## Hont (7 Oct 2016)

Hacienda71 said:


> Mr Locke having his say on the BBC today whilst still denying his guilt as a doper.


I saw that. Shame the headline didn't read "Convicted doper questions Sky's TUE stance".


----------



## Hont (7 Oct 2016)

And if you've not seen it an interesting viewpoint from Dr Hutch in this week's comic...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...s-288711?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social


----------



## Diggs (7 Oct 2016)

And a bizarre interview on BBC Radio 5 live about the whole Sky JTL situation, Tony Doyle goes completely off piste.......

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ticises-three-woman-panel-sexism-shane-sutton


----------



## Stonechat (8 Oct 2016)

YEs JTL and the Russians seem to be leading the criticism - well they would , wouldn't they


----------



## oldroadman (8 Oct 2016)

Just browsing all the sensationalist stuff in Daily Hate Mail and Times about a "raid" at BCHQ by UK Anti-Doping. I was passed a link to a press release by UKAD to say that some of their people had been for a pre-arranged meeting. Hardly a raid. then all the entirely speculative from the Mail that they "assumed" the premises were searched...what a load of fertiliser. But never let facts get in the way of a click bait story. So I took a look at current suspensions on the UKAD website. I found one possibly two cycling related cases. The rest were a couple of rowers, a few weightlifters, and almost everyone else from both codes of rugby. Perhaps the people in search of a story might investigate the amount of abuse in that sport? I fear not, like "mainstream" sports there is too much money and fan base to offend. They may lose readers. Despite the surprising growth in size of rugby players, some of which is probably down to lots of steak and gym work for full time players. I do hope so, but looking at the lists it seems that many are tempted by a short cut. Oddly, no top level cases are reported, so presumably it must be ultra clean in the pro leagues. Obviously.
But of course cycling is a "dirty" sport and always will be in the eyes of the media, however much the public clean up has been effective. Surely other sport bodies don't hide things away or try to reduce punishments, or let people be "injured", do they?


----------



## HF2300 (8 Oct 2016)

It hasn't got anything to do with rationality and it hasn't got anything to do with upsetting or not upsetting mainstream sports; I'm not even sure it's to do with cycling being seen as a dirty sport. Sky, Wiggins et al. are in the public eye at the moment thanks to Fancy Bears' activities and there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on - plus maybe a bit of schadenfreude by Rothermere at another large media organisation being discomfited?


----------



## Winnershsaint (8 Oct 2016)

HF2300 said:


> It hasn't got anything to do with rationality and it hasn't got anything to do with upsetting or not upsetting mainstream sports; I'm not even sure it's to do with cycling being seen as a dirty sport. Sky, Wiggins et al. are in the public eye at the moment thanks to Fancy Bears' activities and there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on - plus maybe a bit of schadenfreude by Rothermere at another large media organisation being discomfited?


Agree this is a celebrity story more than anything. Plus the Daily Nazi or consistently anti-cycling.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Oct 2016)

"Nothing to see, move along" says Cookson
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-...n-to-follow-in-wiggins-tue-case-says-cookson/


----------



## oldroadman (9 Oct 2016)

Marmion said:


> "Nothing to see, move along" says Cookson
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-...n-to-follow-in-wiggins-tue-case-says-cookson/[/Q. UOTE]
> And to a considerable extent, he is correct. No regulation broken. WADA says it's OK to use substance X under TUE which must be approved by the international governing body. All clear and the only slight question mark is over timing and some rather silly statements from certain people, plus the rather odd special trip by a BC employee working on behalf of Sky (and being charged to them?). Nothing as the Daily Hate nonsense about a "raid". Unless a meeting at BCHQ between UKADA and BC/GBCT is a raid - which in the bloodshot eyes of a muckraker it clearly is.
> What is strange is that Times (Murdoch paper) carries a piece which could be seen as criticising Sky (Murdoch again).
> Nest week's papers may be interesting?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2016)

Oh, come on. The whole thing has exposed Sky's supposed high-mindedness as a sham. Not only was there not really a no-needles policy, you had team doctors transporting substances around the place, TUEs for extremely dubious medical reasons which stretch the rules beyond credibility and much more. Sky made a very large play of being different, of being transparent. It turns out they are just another pro-cycling team and as cynical as all the others. And the TUE systems comes across as being a mechanism by which performance-enhancing substances can be 'legally' administered whether or not they really conform to the rules of medical necessity.


----------



## MistaDee (10 Oct 2016)

At least we now know why Sky did not join the MPCC,
Proven liars


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Oct 2016)

what's this Emma Pooley thing?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/09/emma-pooley-sir-dave-brailsford-silly-and-careless


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Oct 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> what's this Emma Pooley thing?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/09/emma-pooley-sir-dave-brailsford-silly-and-careless


Snap. I was just reading this http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pooley-brailsford-and-sky-need-to-get-their-facts-straight/


----------



## iLB (10 Oct 2016)

I think Brailsford tried to explain away the package thing with it being for Pooley, can't find the sauce now though unfortunately.


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Oh, come on. The whole thing has exposed Sky's supposed high-mindedness as a sham. Not only was there not really a no-needles policy, you had team doctors transporting substances around the place, TUEs for extremely dubious medical reasons which stretch the rules beyond credibility and much more. Sky made a very large play of being different, of being transparent. It turns out they are just another pro-cycling team and as cynical as all the others. And the TUE systems comes across as being a mechanism by which performance-enhancing substances can be 'legally' administered whether or not they really conform to the rules of medical necessity.


The no-needles policy was a UCI introduction IIRC, not a Sky policy before then. I may be wrong.
I'm still of the opinion that dosage of an anti-asthma drug to an asthma sufferer is not and was not illegal. There is little or no evidence that it is performance enhancing in any medical report that I've seen. The only people who say things like 'performance enhancing powerful drug' are The Daily Mail and serial cocktail dopers like Rasmussen and Millar.
As I said upthread, Wiggins' biggest mistake was to pretend in his book that intramuscular and IV were different. They may be in his opinion but the distinction is flawed in most others.
The transport of this package remains an unanswered question as yet so speculation is simply that.

Incidentally, no-needles isn't necessarily all it seems (even leaving aside medical drips, dentist's injections, vaccinations etc). Garmin, Prentice Steffen and Vaughters were proud and loud fore-runners of the needle-less scheme but the small print in their 2008 policy document is interesting...

_Slipstream Sports has a strict no needles policy. No injections or infusions of any kind will be permitted in any racing, training or resting circumstance, no matter time of year, location, or event. If you are a member of this team, you cannot inject yourself or have someone else inject you. *Period. If there is a severe medical need, such as cortisone to reduce inflammation in a knee, any injection must approved by the management and medical team.*_


----------



## Crackle (10 Oct 2016)

The secret pro has a view (when does he not)

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/the-...orld-championships-and-rider-transfer-season/

But again, he confirms what Wiggins says about his allergies
_
I don’t doubt that Wiggins has allergies. I know guys who have seen him miserable, just all snotted up, to the point they fixed it, first with an inhaler, and then with the most powerful drug possible._


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2016)

MistaDee said:


> At least we now know why Sky did not join the MPCC,



Nonsense. The MPCC has zero credibility - it's a voluntary organisation that any team can join, and then choose whether or not to abide by its rules. Sky are one of a number of WT teams that either didn't sign up in the first place or have subsequently left (either through choice or being kicked out).


----------



## Viking (10 Oct 2016)

Some of the guff written on this topic is straight out of the Clinic. Brailsford has made a couple of "off the cuff" remarks and he should know better. His Pooley comments were conjecture / "maybe it was" stuff. The lynch mob can't wait. I want to see real evidence not words like "substance" - maybe it was Toblerone - before I jump to conclusions. In the meantime Sky and BC need to think before they speak.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Oct 2016)

Crackle said:


> The secret pro has a view (when does he not)
> 
> http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/the-...orld-championships-and-rider-transfer-season/


_the muscles you do use become all muscle, no fat._

Anyone else read this and think "right, I'm never going to order the cyclist steak".

Oh. So just me then.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2016)

Nicholas Roche says Sky's use of TUEs in Wiggins' case was "unethical"... https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/10/team-sky-roche-nicolas-wiggins-bradley-tue


----------



## brommers (10 Oct 2016)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Nicholas Roche says Sky's use of TUEs in Wiggins' case was "unethical"... https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/10/team-sky-roche-nicolas-wiggins-bradley-tue


He wouldn't have said that if he was riding for them next year


----------



## Crackle (10 Oct 2016)

brommers said:


> He wouldn't have said that if he was riding for them next year


Ah yes, I forgot about that. Would have made for an uncomfortable team briefing otherwise


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2016)

brommers said:


> He wouldn't have said that if he was riding for them next year



Indeed not. But does the freedom to speak out make less true? Hardly.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (10 Oct 2016)

It's all a bit school playground ain't it?

Still.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (15 Oct 2016)

I suppose I'll stick this in here rather than the doping git thread...

Wiggins appears to have missed a "whereabouts" test a few months before Rio, and had 2 other missed tests in 2005 and 2009. Which should not be a story. But it is, according to the Daily Mail. And they are probably right, given that he never mentioned it when he's had plenty opportunity, especially when the Armitstead missed tests were being discussed and he voiced his views.

British Cycling must not have tracked down the mole yet...


----------



## Bollo (15 Oct 2016)

Marmion said:


> I suppose I'll stick this in here rather than the doping git thread...
> 
> Wiggins appears to have missed a "whereabouts" test a few months before Rio, and had 2 other missed tests in 2005 and 2009. Which should not be a story. But it is, according to the Daily Mail. And they are probably right, given that he never mentioned it when he's had plenty opportunity, especially when the Armitstead missed tests were being discussed and he voiced his views.
> 
> British Cycling must not have tracked down the mole yet...


Linky here (avoiding visit to DM ,which is always a bonus)


----------



## oldroadman (15 Oct 2016)

If this kind of rubbish is the best the DM can come up with....oh, hold on, it's the Daily Mail....


----------



## Bollo (15 Oct 2016)

oldroadman said:


> If this kind of rubbish is the best the DM can come up with....oh, hold on, it's the Daily Mail....


Agree to a point. Given all the things that can conspire, missing a single test isn't the end of the world. There's a link on the Grauniad story to a report on a test missed by Froome a la Farah. But as Marms has already pointed out, the problem is the context.


----------



## Hont (15 Oct 2016)

There is a hell of a lot of noise around stuff that is within the rules of the sport.

TUE use - not illegal
Tramadol use - not illegal
Transportation of medical supplies - not illegal
Missed tests - not illegal given the frequency

Sky have mismanaged the message - they always do - but it's not the job of the Teams to determine the rules. That's the job of the UCI and WADA. 

Can we go back to focusing on Russia's state-sponsored doping program now? Pretty sure that's unethical and illegal.


----------



## smutchin (15 Oct 2016)

Marmion said:


> Which should not be a story. But it is, according to the Daily Mail. And they are probably right, given that he never mentioned it when he's had plenty opportunity, especially when the Armitstead missed tests were being discussed and he voiced his views.



With the benefit of hindsight, there appears to be a clue in this comment:
“It’s bloody hard because what happens is you miss one test, they write you a letter, they ask you to explain what happened and you’ve got two weeks to put a case forward,” Wiggins said. “If you ignore that and then you get another one, you end up having crisis meetings.”

It is a bit of a non story though. The whole reason for allowing three missed tests is because it's understood that missing one occasionally is 'just one of those things'.


----------



## smutchin (15 Oct 2016)

Hont said:


> Can we go back to focusing on Russia's state-sponsored doping program now?



The great thing about internet forums is that you can have lots of concurrent threads discussing a wide variety of subjects. And if the subject you're interested in isn't being discussed already, it's very easy to start a new thread.


----------



## EnPassant (15 Oct 2016)

Anyone have a view on Kittel and Greipels position onTUE's in general and Asthma in particular? (gleaned from a follow up to the above link to the Graun by @Bollo ).
I posted upthread that I don't really get TUE's at all, it appears they don't either. With the proviso of, "Well they wouldn't if they never had to use one".


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2016)

I think Kittel might get a place in the paras in the intellectual impairment category.


----------



## smutchin (15 Oct 2016)

Was just about to comment myself along the same lines. I like Kittel but he's not the brightest spark.


----------



## Bollo (15 Oct 2016)

Hont said:


> There is a hell of a lot of noise around stuff that is within the rules of the sport.
> 
> TUE use - not illegal
> Tramadol use - not illegal
> ...


The best analogy I can come up with is aggressive tax 'efficiency'. The act isn't illegal, but it is perceived as unfair or at least hypocritical. Given the general acceptance by Joe and Joanna Public that the success of British cycling has been built on pure corinthian foundations, anything that chips away at that image is going to get headlines.

If this story had come out about Nibbles and Astana, it would have been greeted with a shrug and a few comments about that scamp Vino and sticky Skodas.


----------



## SWSteve (15 Oct 2016)

Wiggins obviously had knowledge of what happens when you miss a whereabouts as seen in comments about Deignan (as quoted by Smutch earlier). Is this missing a whereabouts a big issue? No, it's not. If anyone thinks it is, Cav has missed at least one - and has been open about that. 

This whole saga has been horribly mismanaged by Sky, Wiggins, and BC. They should be speaking out more, and not a week later once the rumours and accusations have stuck. 

Why there isn't a PR company who are dealing with this I dont know, as all 3 parties really need some help. If only Wiggins was signed up to a very exclusive agency which had managed sports stars going through personality crises...


----------



## smutchin (15 Oct 2016)

Bollo said:


> The best analogy I can come up with is aggressive tax 'efficiency'.



It's a good analogy. Like tax efficiency, pushing the rules of sport to their limits is easier when you have lots of money to start with.


----------



## oldroadman (15 Oct 2016)

smutchin said:


> It's a good analogy. Like tax efficiency, pushing the rules of sport to their limits is easier when you have lots of money to start with.


Pushing the rules to the limit has always happened in all sports. This is how the extra talented apply themselves to becoming winners. The rest of us poor old also rans manage to scrape by, but that does not mean we also don't push things, just that the same ability is not present. Some are leaders, others are fated to a career in the servive of the extra talented. Domestique pay can be quite decent is you are dedicated to the job, and there's no pressure for personal results. Excellent!


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2016)

Hont said:


> Can we go back to focusing on Russia's state-sponsored doping program now?





smutchin said:


> The great thing about internet forums is that you can have lots of concurrent threads discussing a wide variety of subjects. And if the subject you're interested in isn't being discussed already, it's very easy to start a new thread.



I think Hont is just highlighting the fact the Fancy Bears are exposing these TUEs to deflect attention from their far, far greater sporting crimes which seem to have been successfully put on the back burner.


----------



## smutchin (16 Oct 2016)

rich p said:


> I think Hont is just highlighting the fact the Fancy Bears are exposing these TUEs to deflect attention from their far, far greater sporting crimes which seem to have been successfully put on the back burner.



Why do you think they're on the back burner? Because they're not being reported in the Daily Mail? Because they're not being discussed in an internet forum?


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2016)

smutchin said:


> Why do you think they're on the back burner? Because they're not being reported in the Daily Mail? Because they're not being discussed in an internet forum?


Possibly, that in the court of public opinion, nobody is talking about it but even non-cycling friends of mine are talking about Wiggins being a doper. The hoi polloi are headline readers.
It was actually Hont's post which I was trying to explain but I should probably have left it to him!


----------



## Hont (16 Oct 2016)

rich p said:


> It was actually Hont's post which I was trying to explain but I should probably have left it to him!



But you did it really well. Thank you.

Fancy Bears are probably crying with laughter at the British media.


----------



## Hont (16 Oct 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> This whole saga has been horribly mismanaged by Sky, Wiggins, and BC...


Sky have consistently been very poor at PR. Remember when Froome's data was matched to that video and they immediately started a witch-hunt for hackers only to find it had been leaked. It made them look like bullies and incompetent all at the same time.

Setting yourself up as a super-clean whiter than white cycling team is nearly always going to bite you in the arse at some point. It's amazing that Sky are still so poor at this.


----------



## Hont (16 Oct 2016)

Bollo said:


> Given the general acceptance by Joe and Joanna Public that the success of British cycling has been built on pure corinthian foundations, anything that chips away at that image is going to get headlines.


Sure I understand the reasons. It's all how it's spun - the Government managed to put the blame on the tax avoiders without once accepting responsibility for not having better tax laws. Sky are getting blamed for complying with the rules of their sport, but if TUEs are being abused the rules need to be changed.

Sky not being the angels they claim to be is nothing new. Froome's corticosteroid use at Romandie was in spring 2014 and widely reported at the time.


----------



## Slaav (16 Oct 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> Wiggins obviously had knowledge of what happens when you miss a whereabouts as seen in comments about Deignan (as quoted by Smutch earlier). Is this missing a whereabouts a big issue? No, it's not. If anyone thinks it is, Cav has missed at least one - and has been open about that.
> 
> This whole saga has been horribly mismanaged by Sky, Wiggins, and BC. They should be speaking out more, and not a week later once the rumours and accusations have stuck.
> 
> Why there isn't a PR company who are dealing with this I dont know, as all 3 parties really need some help. If only Wiggins was signed up to a very exclusive agency which had managed sports stars going through personality crises...



I think the issue is a simple one. Wiggins could easily have criticised Lizzie and ADDED he should know as it happened to him.... But that then feeds the trolls whilst the knowledgeable nod sagely that he does have a point??

When his comments are read in full and now looked at with hindsight, then it is clear that his comments have MORE credibility, not less - which is the whole angle of the DM story (and even some on here and other sites.) why (especially) the DM always pick the -ve spin on these stories baffles me!

The INFREQUENCY of Wiggos missed tests shows how well he understood and worked WITH the system, not against it! With his profile and success, my guess is he was tested quite a lot and very often. To only miss a few tests in his career and never (it seems) missed a second, shows why his comments on Lizzie are fair and valid? Not the other way around surely?

Anyway, haters (Inc DM readers) will always hate....

The rules need tweaking, so let's not hang people for working WITHIN the scope of the current rules???


----------



## SWSteve (16 Oct 2016)

Slaav said:


> I think the issue is a simple one. Wiggins could easily have criticised Lizzie and ADDED he should know as it happened to him.... But that then feeds the trolls whilst the knowledgeable nod sagely that he does have a point??
> 
> When his comments are read in full and now looked at with hindsight, then it is clear that his comments have MORE credibility, not less - which is the whole angle of the DM story (and even some on here and other sites.) why (especially) the DM always pick the -ve spin on these stories baffles me!
> 
> ...




I also think it was a chance for him to state he had missed a test, and now knows the process and works to ensure it solid to happen again within a 13 month period. 

What I don't like is how his ridiculous PR agency who are earning him buckets of money through appearances and brand ambassador work, seem to have forgotten if people think he's a cheat - his home market won't be so appreciative.


----------



## oldroadman (17 Oct 2016)

It's been said before, at the top level you work right to the limit of the rules. Which Sky have never denied they do. If the TUE system is broken then WADA and UCI should sort it out, that's their job. I do agree though that Fancy Bears have done a masterly PR job of diverting attention from the Russian issue - real quality diversionary propaganda. Could almost have been done by a dirty tricks department of a secret service...oh, hold on...


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2016)

oldroadman said:


> If the TUE system is broken then WADA and UCI should sort it out, that's their job.



Agreed. And hopefully that is what is going on behind the scenes. 



> I do agree though that Fancy Bears have done a masterly PR job of diverting attention from the Russian issue - real quality diversionary propaganda. Could almost have been done by a dirty tricks department of a secret service...oh, hold on...



Tbh, I don't think it really matters. It's normal for British cycling fans to be interested in whether or not their great hero is a doper, but I don't think any of this is going to do any real damage to Wiggo's reputation in the long run - bearing in mind how many people still believe in Lance.

And again, with regard to the Russian doping program, it's what's going on behind the scenes at WADA and the UCI that really matters, not whether it is reported in the Daily Mail or being discussed in internet forums - which is what I was getting at in my response to @Hont's post. In the court of public opinion, the Russians are already Public Enemy No.1 anyway.

And I don't think anyone has suggested that anything Wiggins has done is as bad as what the Russians are up to. Wiggins and Froome's TUEs are still a valid topic for discussion even if there are more disreputable things going on in the sport.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (18 Oct 2016)

This made I larf


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Oct 2016)

User3094 said:


> Froome's sinking the knife ever deeper, he really doesn't like him does he?



However much he dislikes Wiggins, it's hard to disagree with anything he says about Wiggins. However he is simulataneously justifying his own already controversial TUE...


----------



## Supersuperleeds (18 Oct 2016)

Didn't Froome come second the year Wiggo won the TDF


----------



## Venod (18 Oct 2016)

Supersuperleeds said:


> Didn't Froome come second the year Wiggo won the TDF



Yes and could have won easily if the team had allowed it.


----------



## swansonj (18 Oct 2016)

Wow. "Debating the validity of a Tour de France victory" is surely deliberately escalating the framing of the debate.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Oct 2016)

BBC News reporting Hoy as speaking about TUE abuse. Wiggins will be lost on a bender very soon.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (18 Oct 2016)

Wiggo's chance of SPOTY 2016 looks less likely than it ever did


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Oct 2016)

At least this TUE thing is providing me some minor amusement of a morning


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8o7RNL-mHI&feature=youtu.be


----------



## david k (31 Oct 2016)

geopat said:


> The timing of the TUEs says all. The regulations are in place for those who desperately need medication at a particular time and Wiggins did not.
> 
> He cheated, end off, in my book.


He claims he did need it


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (3 Nov 2016)

The new Team Sky kit, with T U E spelled out repeatedly in morse code


----------



## themosquitoking (3 Nov 2016)

That's a lot less recognisible (sorry about spelling, beers have been taken) in the peloton than the blue stripe. A lot of teams out there with black shoulders at the moment.


----------



## rich p (3 Nov 2016)

Marmion said:


> The new Team Sky kit, with T U E spelled out repeatedly in morse code


I think that says sly with a weird Y.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 Nov 2016)

rich p said:


> I think that says sly with a weird Y.


My guess at what the dashes represented is a whole load of less bollocky than the explanation given as to what they symbolise.


----------



## Donger (4 Nov 2016)

Marmion said:


> The new Team Sky kit, with T U E spelled out repeatedly in morse code


Looks more like the Sky TV reception we get whenever it rains heavily.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Dec 2016)

Apparently Wiggins is not going to be subject to further investigation regarding the mysterious jiffy bag. I am going on twitter information which mentions a Times article. But they hate free access, so I hate them. That and Murdoch being a dick of course.


----------



## Stonechat (9 Dec 2016)

So back to the real story, i.e. The Russian state sponsored doping


----------



## Louch (10 Dec 2016)

Afnug said:


> Yes and could have won easily if the team had allowed it.


No he wouldn't. Take away the two controversial attacks and he was getting as much help from wiggo as he was giving wiggo. Don't let edited clips and sound bites fool you


----------



## Supersuperleeds (18 Dec 2016)

Dave Brailsford is up before a commons select committee tomorrow regarding doping and is expected to be questioned regarding Wiggos TUE and the medical package delivered during the TDF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38356946


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Dec 2016)

David Walsh, he of the Inside Team Sky (All Is Well) book, took to twitter today after Brailsford/Sutton appeared before the Select C'ttee:
"My impression from listening to Dave Brailsford and Shane Sutton at Select Committee today is that we're being subjected to massive cover-up"


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2016)

It was decongestant.



Stonechat said:


> So back to the real story, i.e. The Russian state sponsored doping



Hear, hear!


----------



## SWSteve (19 Dec 2016)

It all seems a bit odd


----------



## smutchin (19 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> It all seems a bit odd



Quite.


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Dec 2016)

Lol @ David. "can I have my credibility back please?" Walsh


----------



## SWSteve (19 Dec 2016)

One thing I've thought about this, wasn't Walsh with Team Sky for the 2011 Dauphiné on his 'follow SKY round and tell the world how clean they are' tour?


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> One thing I've thought about this, wasn't Walsh with Team Sky for the 2011 Dauphiné on his 'follow SKY round and tell the world how clean they are' tour?


No, well at least not for that book.

"For the 2013 season Brailsford has given David Walsh the invitation of a lifetime - Join the team. See what you want. Speak with whom you want. No closed doors."

I'm ashamed to say I've got a copy of that book. I just picked it up and fortunately the necessary info was on the flyleaf, so I didn't have to read any of the pages of grovelling obsequiousness mixed with Lance-like attacks on critics.


----------



## SWSteve (19 Dec 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> No, well at least not for that book.
> 
> "For the 2013 season Brailsford has given David Walsh the invitation of a lifetime - Join the team. See what you want. Speak with whom you want. No closed doors."
> 
> I'm ashamed to say I've got a copy of that book. I just picked it up and fortunately the necessary info was on the flyleaf, so I didn't have to read any of the pages of grovelling obsequiousness mixed with Lance-like attacks on critics.




It's odd, he has made comment on it being a big cover-up, and it certainly looks like he has played a part in it - whether knowingly or otherwise (most likely the latter).


----------



## rich p (20 Dec 2016)

It's shame that Walsh and Kimmage became such tits after Lancegate


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> It's shame that Walsh and Kimmage became such tits after Lancegate


OT a bit, but that Walsh book was the most disappointing, annoying book I've ever read. I picked it up purely because he was the author and I thought it might be interesting, but the tone varies from aggressive defence (eg justification of the hiring of Geert Leinders) to canonisation of just about anyone connected with Sky, from Brailsford down to the humblest anti-doping sock-washer, to preemptive attacks on doubters of the likes of Ross Tucker. Not a single thoughtful outsider's view in the whole book. I just couldn't understand his motivation for writing like that. It was suggested that it was to curry favour with his employers at News International. I wonder if he wasn't just a bit burnt out after all the Armstrong stuff and just turned out an easy lazy book.

I was ambivalent about Sky at the time, especially because Saint Cav was a bit peed off with them, but I found that book so annoying I decided to put Sky on my list of baddies when following racing. (I like to have a nicely simplistic view of goodies and baddies when following sport, isn't that what sport's all about?).

Kimmage, IMO is a bit potty. He seems to be permanently incoherent with anger. I read him now and again, but I rarely understand what he is on about.


----------



## Stonechat (20 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> David Walsh, he of the Inside Team Sky (All Is Well) book, took to twitter today after Brailsford/Sutton appeared before the Select C'ttee:
> "My impression from listening to Dave Brailsford and Shane Sutton at Select Committee today is that we're being subjected to massive cover-up"


I bet you watch the X files


----------



## smutchin (20 Dec 2016)

Stonechat said:


> I bet you watch the X files



Do you prefer Jackanory?


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Dec 2016)

Come to think of it, Chris Froome does have a bit of a look of one of those grey aliens, doesn't he?


----------



## uclown2002 (20 Dec 2016)

The whole thing stinks:-


But questions remain:


Why has it taken so long for organisations that claim to be committed to transparency and accountability to get here?
The Daily Mail now reports that Brailsford tried to persuade them not to run the Jiffy bag story. Why go to such efforts when it merely contained a decongestant?
Will British Cycling or Team Sky now be able to provide a paper trail to back up the Fluimucil explanation?
Why was British Cycling president Bob Howden still unable to say what was in the jiffy bag months after the story broke, only for Brailsford to then reveal it?
Why were Brailsford's original explanations about the delivery not correct when all he had to do was ask former team medic Dr Richard Freeman?
Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?
Why did former coach Shane Sutton "authorise" the delivery of something, the details of which he claims not to be aware of? And why did Wiggins' long-term mentor not know what medication his star cyclist was taking?
And why was Wiggins taking a decongestant that apparently is not meant to be used by asthmatics (like him)?
Sadly for Team Sky and British Cycling, despite the belated attempt at clarity, for many critics the sense of suspicion will linger beyond today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38379953


----------



## jontee70 (20 Dec 2016)

brailsfords statement is a whole pack of lies the utter contempt that this man has got for the cycling community to come out with this total rubbish is beyond belief . it makes one wonder who is running british cycling. its always the same once SKY get their fingers in the pie it becomes corrupt, as brailsfords just one of their puppets. and as for BRAD very sad that he ends it all under this cloud but its of his own making


----------



## oldroadman (20 Dec 2016)

jontee70 said:


> brailsfords statement is a whole pack of lies the utter contempt that this man has got for the cycling community to come out with this total rubbish is beyond belief . it makes one wonder who is running british cycling. its always the same once SKY get their fingers in the pie it becomes corrupt, as brailsfords just one of their puppets. and as for BRAD very sad that he ends it all under this cloud but its of his own making


It would be unfortunate if the lawyers saw that libellous statement. There's a difference between conjecture and provable evidence for statements in the public domain. Lucky this is not the USA, the writ server would probably be on the doorstep in the morning. Someone called out as a liar has every right to redress through the courts if they wish.


----------



## rich p (20 Dec 2016)

oldroadman said:


> It would be unfortunate if the lawyers saw that libellous statement. There's a difference between conjecture and provable evidence for statements in the public domain. Lucky this is not the USA, the writ server would probably be on the doorstep in the morning. Someone called out as a liar has every right to redress through the courts if they wish.


I think not...

*FREE SPEECH V. DEFAMATION*
_In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions._

Sir DB would also have to prove that he was materially affected by the post which would be a bit of a stretch!

It's why Merkans used to come over here for libel tourism cases IIRC


----------



## oldroadman (20 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> I think not...
> 
> *FREE SPEECH V. DEFAMATION*
> _In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. As a result, federal slander and libel laws are more defendant-friendly in the U.S. than those in common law countries, like the U.K. and Canada. In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren't protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions._
> ...


Well if that's correct then I'm factually incorrect, and admit so. However it does not alter the fact of people posting unpleasant comments on social media. My view is if you would not say it to their face or in writing with your name and contact details attached, then don't say it on a forum. When I was young (and God was a boy!) this was called common courtesy, something which seems to be a bit in decline.


----------



## rich p (20 Dec 2016)

I think this section, and this thread in particular, are fair game for a bit of speculating. 
And I say that as someone who doesn't believe a lot of the hysteria posted above.
If it goes over the top with wild accusations with zero circumstantial evidence then I'd agree. Stopping looking at it is the best defence against trolling, if that's what you think it is.


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Dec 2016)

There was a piece in the Evening Standard this evening that went over this whole snafu and concluded that Brailsford is either incompetent or unethical, and either way will be lucky to keep his job. 

I'm not sure what my opinion is. I wonder what Sky (the sponsors) are thinking about this? Hoping it will blow over I guess. This is getting less publicity than the TdF does, so they may not be too concerned.


----------



## fossyant (20 Dec 2016)

Many if not most decongestants contain banned chemicals - the pro's know this ! Even as a rank amateur I wouldn't take them if feeling ill in the 'season'. This was over 20 years ago.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Dec 2016)

Velonews have a decent article, asking relevant questions arising from Sirdave's waffle
http://www.velonews.com/2016/12/new...e-in-skys-miracles_426647#jwpUPoYvL6SFp9xC.99


----------



## smutchin (21 Dec 2016)

fossyant said:


> Many if not most decongestants contain banned chemicals - the pro's know this !



This would be a legitimate reason for shipping the package from home rather than buying over the counter locally - sticking to known and tested products is the only way to guarantee avoiding taking something you shouldn't. The case of Alain Baxter comes to mind. 

However, it doesn't answer the question of why he was taking it in the first place.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Dec 2016)

smutchin said:


> This would be a legitimate reason for shipping the package from home rather than buying over the counter locally - sticking to known and tested products is the only way to guarantee avoiding taking something you shouldn't. The case of Alain Baxter comes to mind.
> 
> However, it doesn't answer the question of why he was taking it in the first place.


Or why Sirdave spent weeks dodging questions. 
Transparency my arse.


----------



## Viking (21 Dec 2016)

IMHO, a lot of the confusion / misunderstanding / misleading (call it what you want) is down to people being too quick to give "obvious" answers to questions without conducting a detailed investigation e.g. if after a stage,the question about what cassette the rider was using was asked, it would be easy to say 11-28 'cos that is what they normally use. If it subsequently turned out to be 11-25, the Daily Mail and its adherents here would be shouting "cover up ! / lies!!" As for Cope's trip, it appears he was making the journey anyway, so why not use him to bring the package. When I was working on a project in Zurich, I asked if anyone coming out in the next couple of days could bring a couple of USB memory sticks with them. Sure, I could have gone round the corner to Banhofstrasse and got them there but a) it was extra hassle and b) company policy to only use approved USB sticks (a bit like the Alain Baxter point mentioned above). However according to the Daily Mail and its followers that would have been presented as a 1000 mile round trip to deliver USB sticks that could easily be sourced locally.

Questions have been asked if Brailsford is lying and yet AFAIK, none have been asked if Lawton is being completely accurate with his recollections (any recordings, contemporaneous notes, witnesses etc?).

After (and before) all of this I believe the following.

Sky was not the well oiled, smooth machine as it was reputed to be (by the Press!). I always thought this as exemplified by the "No plan B" approach. 

Sutton may well be very good at his coaching job but he should not be in charge of an operation. This is not a mean-spirited comment, but being "High heid yin" requires a different skill set.

A number of journalists want to be like a latter day Walsh except Walsh who feels grieved that he wasn't told about the TUEs (it would have been odd if had been but Thomas and other team mates weren't) and is trying to regain some sort of witch finder general reputation (he should have a good look at rugby if he wants some high percentage drug use headlines).

The Daily Mail-esque presentation of the questions will lead to a general reduction in information available and certainly a time lag if all it does is allow off the cuff answers to be taken out of context. In this regard, Sky are quite correct to batten down the hatches and only release fully verified information when it suits them, not the Daily Mail, Matt Lawton or the Katie Hopkins look alike on the forums

.. and for the record, I am queasy about TUEs in general, don't like Sky's racing style, effective though it is and think that BC needs a complete management overhaul.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Dec 2016)

Viking said:


> IMHO, a lot of the confusion / misunderstanding / misleading (call it what you want) is down to people being too quick to give "obvious" answers to questions without conducting a detailed investigation e.g. if after a stage,the question about what cassette the rider was using was asked, it would be easy to say 11-28 'cos that is what they normally use. If it subsequently turned out to be 11-25, the Daily Mail and its adherents here would be shouting "cover up ! / lies!!" As for Cope's trip, it appears he was making the journey anyway, so why not use him to bring the package. When I was working on a project in Zurich, I asked if anyone coming out in the next couple of days could bring a couple of USB memory sticks with them. Sure, I could have gone round the corner to Banhofstrasse and got them there but a) it was extra hassle and b) company policy to only use approved USB sticks (a bit like the Alain Baxter point mentioned above). However according to the Daily Mail and its followers that would have been presented as a 1000 mile round trip to deliver USB sticks that could easily be sourced locally.
> 
> Questions have been asked if Brailsford is lying and yet AFAIK, none have been asked if Lawton is being completely accurate with his recollections (any recordings, contemporaneous notes, witnesses etc?).
> 
> ...



There's nothing "Daily Mail" about asking Sirdave what was in the package. 
Nor is there anything "Daily Mail" about some of the issues raised by the Daily Mail and many other journalists.
Sirdave has lost a lot of credibility, part of that is due in part to people taking everything he has said at face value in the past just because he was Sirdave.

Sky are not "quite correct to batten down the hatches" because all it does is fuel the fire, especially when they then try to present everything as tickety-boo and say "move along, nothing to see here" despite there quite evidently being something to see.


----------



## gk09 (21 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> Velonews have a decent article, asking relevant questions arising from Sirdave's waffle
> http://www.velonews.com/2016/12/new...e-in-skys-miracles_426647#jwpUPoYvL6SFp9xC.99



Great article I thought. Deja Vu again...


----------



## SWSteve (21 Dec 2016)

Smutch makes a good comment above it the decongestant b img transported, you know that that you're getting is a product that's been tested. One other reason, how long do you think it would take a story about a Team Sky doctor collecting a prescription based Decongestant from a French pharmacy to appear in l'equipe


----------



## gk09 (21 Dec 2016)

Whilst there are many legitimate reasons for why things might have happened as they did and on the face of it they could be easily explained, the question remains that if that _is _the case, why weren't they answered straight away and this all nipped in the bud?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Dec 2016)

Sirdave, a liability?
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/12/com...-issues-with-dave-brailsford-at-centre-stage/


----------



## rich p (22 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> Sirdave, a liability?
> https://cyclingtips.com/2016/12/com...-issues-with-dave-brailsford-at-centre-stage/


Let me know when Shane Stokes says something new...


----------



## coldash (23 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> Let me know when Shane Stokes says something new...


Yep. That site is full of regurgitated bilge and as for the "Secret Pro" - Secret Fantasist , more like it


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Dec 2016)

It all stinks. Sky & Co are lying.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> Let me know when Shane Stokes says something new...





coldash said:


> Yep. That site is full of regurgitated bilge and as for the "Secret Pro" - Secret Fantasist , more like it



It doesn't have to be "new" to be relevant, nor is it "bilge"

Uncomfortable for those who are "Believers", and it's not far off "haterz gonna hate"


----------



## ColinJ (24 Dec 2016)

They are really lining up to have a go now ... LINK.


----------



## rich p (24 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> It doesn't have to be "new" to be relevant, nor is it "bilge"
> 
> Uncomfortable for those who are "Believers", and it's not far off "haterz gonna hate"


 Stokes is a prick. Did he read the Velonews article and swap the words around?

There are questions that could be answered/clarified by Sky, for sure, but until there's something a bit more substantial I'll reserve judgment.
There are many positions between 'Believers' and 'Clinic swivel-eyed loons' 

Happy Christmas Marmy!


----------



## uclown2002 (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> Stokes is a prick. Did he read the Velonews article and swap the words around?
> 
> There are questions that could be answered/clarified by Sky, for sure, *but until there's something a bit more substantial I'll reserve judgment.*
> There are many positions between 'Believers' and 'Clinic swivel-eyed loons'
> ...


 


uclown2002 said:


> Why has it taken so long for organisations that claim to be committed to transparency and accountability to get here?
> 
> The Daily Mail now reports that Brailsford tried to persuade them not to run the Jiffy bag story. Why go to such efforts when it merely contained a decongestant?
> 
> ...


 
Nothing to see move along..............................


----------



## rich p (24 Dec 2016)

uclown2002 said:


> Nothing to see move along..............................


And your point is?

I have agreed that there answers needed but, as yet, no evidence of malpractice.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> Happy Christmas Marmy!



Likewise, you old git


----------



## SheilaH (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> And your point is?
> 
> I have agreed that there answers needed but, as yet, no evidence of malpractice.



Strange, then, that Brailsford was so eager to stop the story coming out...offering up a story about another team abusing TUEs and then the immortal words "Is there anything else that can be done?"

And if he knew the content of the 'package', or could have found out with one phonecall to Freeman, why the massive intrigue? Why not kill the story straight away by saying it was a decongestant? Why allow the story to get legs to the point of being summoned in front of a parliamentary commitee about cheating in sport?


----------



## rich p (24 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Strange, then, that Brailsford was so eager to stop the story coming out...offering up a story about another team abusing TUEs and then the immortal words "Is there anything else that can be done?"
> 
> And if he knew the content of the 'package', or could have found out with one phonecall to Freeman, why the massive intrigue? Why not kill the story straight away by saying it was a decongestant? Why allow the story to get legs to the point of being summoned in front of a parliamentary commitee about cheating in sport?


And your point is?

As I said, there are questions but no answers...or evidence yet.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> And your point is?
> 
> As I said, there are questions but no answers...or evidence yet.


Fanboy


----------



## SWSteve (24 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Strange, then, that Brailsford was so eager to stop the story coming out...offering up a story about another team abusing TUEs and then the immortal words "Is there anything else that can be done?"
> 
> And if he knew the content of the 'package', or could have found out with one phonecall to Freeman, why the massive intrigue? Why not kill the story straight away by saying it was a decongestant? Why allow the story to get legs to the point of being summoned in front of a parliamentary commitee about cheating in sport?




Maybe because he considered it would cause a storm in a teacup and he couldn't guarantee someone -including himself- wouldn't mess up press interaction afterwards.


----------



## Viking (24 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> And your point is?
> 
> As I said, there are questions but no answers...or evidence yet.


That's where I am on it. The sooner UKAD establish and publish the facts, the better. Until then, I'm not happy to place my faith in the veracity of the Daily Mail or anyone else that used unnamed sources etc. 

In any event, I think that the whole of BC needs overhauling and clearly separated from Sky.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Dec 2016)

I think a lot of the problems stem from Brailsford being a complete dick control freak.


----------



## oldroadman (24 Dec 2016)

Viking said:


> That's where I am on it. The sooner UKAD establish and publish the facts, the better. Until then, I'm not happy to place my faith in the veracity of the Daily Mail or anyone else that used unnamed sources etc.
> 
> In any event, I think that the whole of BC needs overhauling and clearly separated from Sky.


I guess with the partnership BC/Sky deal ending this month, that will be the case anyway. Can't imagine HSBC will want to get involved in it.
Once Team Sky is cut adrift, then BC can get on with being the NGB it's shown it can be. One question inmy mind, why did BC people say they couldn't say anything because UKAD had said they were not to comment while the investigation was on, then seem to tell the MPs they could ask? A cynic might think that UKAD wanted to hang BC out to dry in public while they kept a low profile. Then DB spoilt all the fun by saying what was in this package, quoting the team doctor who now is working for BC. It was all in 2011, 5 years ago, so how come it takes this long for the story to come out?


----------



## Viking (24 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> I think a lot of the problems stem from Brailsford being a complete dick control freak.


Yes, I sort of agree. It would be less of a problem if he was a fully competent control freak but I don't think he's really all that good at it. 

Some of the apparent management proceses and accountability in what is a pretty large and complex organisation seem to be lacking


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Dec 2016)

oldroadman said:


> I guess with the partnership BC/Sky deal ending this month, that will be the case anyway. Can't imagine HSBC will want to get involved in it.
> Once Team Sky is cut adrift, then BC can get on with being the NGB it's shown it can be. One question inmy mind, why did BC people say they couldn't say anything because UKAD had said they were not to comment while the investigation was on, then seem to tell the MPs they could ask? A cynic might think that UKAD wanted to hang BC out to dry in public while they kept a low profile. Then DB spoilt all the fun by saying what was in this package, quoting the team doctor who now is working for BC. It was all in 2011, 5 years ago, so how come it takes this long for the story to come out?


It's all very strange.

I always thought Sky would achieve their stated aim when they started - to win the Tour within 5 years.

I have thought for the past 2 years that their end was on the horizon, this might be the dawn of their ending. But then again, it's Sky.


----------



## SheilaH (24 Dec 2016)

Viking said:


> That's where I am on it. The sooner UKAD establish and publish the facts, the better. Until then, I'm not happy to place my faith in the veracity of the Daily Mail or anyone else that used unnamed sources etc. .



Except that on this occasion everyone, Sky, BC and UKAD have confirmed the Mail's story.

Brailsford has yet to comment on, or deny the Mail reporters allegation that Brailsford tried tobget him to bury the story.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (25 Dec 2016)

A very Merry and transparent Christmas from Sirdave


----------



## SWSteve (25 Dec 2016)

oldroadman said:


> One question inmy mind, why did BC people say they couldn't say anything because UKAD had said they were not to comment while the investigation was on, then seem to tell the MPs they could ask? A cynic might think that UKAD wanted to hang BC out to dry in public while they kept a low profile. Then DB spoilt all the fun by saying what was in this package, quoting the team doctor who now is working for BC. It was all in 2011, 5 years ago, so how come it takes this long for the story to come out?



How I understand it:
UKAD told BC to not comment publicly on the investigation in hand

As part of the the DCMS interviews last week, UKAD sent a letter to the MPs confirming UKAD were happy for any questions to be asked, and there was no potential contention in the proceedings. 

In the interviews, when shown the letter the first two interviewees stuck to the original guidelines and didn't say anything they couldn't confirm (hence promising 2 days to confirm contents of package). Upon presentation of the letter DB took it at face value (I imagine he is aware of some bods at UKAD after reporting a tipping off in 2016) and complied with all questions asked. 

Sorry for lack of names, it's Christmas Day after all.


----------



## Viking (26 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Except that on this occasion everyone, Sky, BC and UKAD have confirmed the Mail's story.
> 
> Brailsford has yet to comment on, or deny the Mail reporters allegation that Brailsford tried tobget him to bury the story.


AFAIK, the only part of the Daily Mail story that has been confirmed by all is that Cope carried a package with him to be delivered to Sky. The allegation that he made a special round trip hasn't been confirmed and in fact has been denied. 

I'm waiting for the full investigation to be conducted and published before joking the lynch mob or the deniers. 

As for Lawton's accusations, he should back them up with something substantive. If he does, I'll support him, until then, it is worthless.


----------



## SheilaH (26 Dec 2016)

Beyond a recording of the conversation what substantive thing could there be to release?

Brailsford has not commented on Lawton's accusation/report. There are just a couple of possibilities for this...one of which is that the accusation is true. I cant help think that if it was a lie Brailsford would have been all over it.

You are correct about the lack of detail about Cope's journey, and the Parliamentary Committee have explicitly stated that they want tò know if the sole purpose of Cope's journey was to deliver the package.

It is certainly true that there is tremendous potential in this story for slight misreporting whether it be in blogs, papers or twitter, that then itself gets re-reported.

Personally, I think Sky have been totally found out for the utter mendacity of their claims to be clean and morally-upstanding. There are so many contradictory facts that have come to light through hacking and moles inside the team that it is very difficult to take anything they seriously.

One thing is for certain, they have only themselves to blame for all of this. Curiously, though, the stink over Wiggins's hidden TUEs and his mystery package have taken the heat off Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.


----------



## rich p (26 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.


Christ alive.
The Clinic's thaddaway>>>>


----------



## SheilaH (26 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> Christ alive.
> The Clinic's thaddaway>>>>



And your point is?

Perhaps you should have a read of the thread title. If you have anything interesting or informed to contribute please go ahead.


----------



## rich p (26 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> And your point is?
> 
> Perhaps you should have a read of the thread title. If you have anything interesting or informed to contribute please go ahead.


I did and have contributed many times over the years? Have you?
By the way, the thread title makes no mention of uninformed and wild speculation, which has been your main thrust so far.


----------



## SheilaH (26 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> I did and have contributed many times over the years? Have you?



As I said, if you have anything interesting to say, please go ahead.



> By the way, the thread title makes no mention of uninformed and wild speculation, which has been your main thrust so far.



Please quote the parts of my posts you claim are wild unsubstantiated speculation


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

rich p said:


> I did and have contributed many times over the years? Have you?


I hope you're not going to claim any of it has made sense


----------



## Stonechat (26 Dec 2016)

Seems to me that nothing untoward has been proved, but some people believe it anyway, that is their prerogative, but we don't all


----------



## uclown2002 (26 Dec 2016)




----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

Stonechat said:


> Seems to me that nothing untoward has been proved, but some people believe it anyway, that is their prerogative, but we don't all


Jeezo.


----------



## coldash (26 Dec 2016)

Stonechat said:


> Seems to me that nothing untoward has been proved, but some people believe it anyway, that is their prerogative, but we don't all


But it has been proved. The Daily Mail says so and all the Daily Mail followers on here are quite right to praise the investigative skills of that august publisher

...... Or maybe it is all bull and the anti-Sky brigade will cling to anything to justify their prejudices

.... Or maybe as others have said, we should wait before getting knickers in a twist


----------



## SheilaH (26 Dec 2016)

Stonechat said:


> Seems to me that nothing untoward has been proved, but some people believe it anyway, that is their prerogative, but we don't all



When it comes to national sporting heroes, people will believe what they want to believe. They will bend over backwards not to hear what they dont want to hear.

Any sane anaysis of the goings on at Sky, whether it be having a ZTP policy whilst employing a doping doctor, saying they wont let riders race if they need a TUE then giving Wiggins a TUE before every major stage race for a notorious PED, Wiggins confusion over whether he has ever had an injection in his life, right down to watching Brailsford scurrying about because somebody has leaked about a medical package and he clearly doesnt know if the leak includes details of the package contents (hence his procrastination in revealing the contents) just points to a team who are, if nothing else, full of sh1t.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> ...the anti-Sky brigade...


If there is a requirement for "proof" then this should be high on the list.


----------



## coldash (26 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> If there is a requirement for "proof" then this should be high on the list.


The only proof so far is that you've made up your mind before the facts are known. Maybe UKAD should draw on your psychic powers to speed up the investigation


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> The only proof so far is that you've made up your mind before the facts are known. Maybe UKAD should draw on your psychic powers to speed up the investigation


I think you missed the point I was trying to make


----------



## SWSteve (26 Dec 2016)

The wild accusations about Froome are just misplaced.

As has been said before, there are teams who must be pissing themselves at all this taking the spotlight away from them. Haven't the *new* vini fantini team signed a serial doper. Let alone whatever Vino is suggesting to sample during training


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> The wild accusations about Froome are just misplaced.
> 
> As has been said before, there are teams who must be pissing themselves at all this taking the spotlight away from them. Haven't the *new* vini fantini team signed a serial doper. Let alone



This is of Sirdave's doing.


----------



## SWSteve (26 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> This is of Sirdave's doing.



I'm not saying it isnt


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (26 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> I'm not saying it isnt


I know.

But I feel the need to repeat it as others seem to not realise it.


----------



## SWSteve (26 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> I know.
> 
> But I feel the need to repeat it as others seem to not realise it.



As soon as Brailsford asked Lawton (is that right? - from the DM) to bury the story, he will have known it was going to press. Why there wasn't a plan in place for when it was released I don't understand. 

This whole story reeks of an organisation who believed they were beyond reproach because of the work they conducted over successive Olympic cycles. Whether they be Brailsford not answering questions when asked, or Sutton repeating the good work done by Sir Dave Brailsford for BC


----------



## SWSteve (26 Dec 2016)

And, where is Brian Cookson in all this, wasn't he big daddy boss of BC when this was going on


----------



## Stonechat (27 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> But it has been proved. The Daily Mail says so and all the Daily Mail followers on here are quite right to praise the investigative skills of that august publisher
> 
> ...... Or maybe it is all bull and the anti-Sky brigade will cling to anything to justify their prejudices
> 
> .... Or maybe as others have said, we should wait before getting knickers in a twist


Round objects


----------



## SheilaH (27 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> And, where is Brian Cookson in all this, wasn't he big daddy boss of BC when this was going on



Keeping his head firmly down 

By the way, somebody mentioned 'the clinic' in relation to my posts, which is disingenuous. Its akin to somebody remarking on it being a cold day today and then subsequently being accused of being a climate change denier.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think that there are only two possible opinions about Team Sky and those two opinions are at opposite ends of the spectrum of possibilities. It is entirely possible to think that Sky might not be breaking rules, but are, nevertheless, unethical and hypocritical.

For me personally, the case of Wiggins's TUE's for known PEDs flying in the face of their stated intention not to allow riders with TUEs to race (let alone win grand tours) is proof that their self-declared whiter than whiteness amounts to nothing. Wiggins's own statements in his autobiography (written after he'd received these injections) that he'd never received injections (other than holiday vaccinations) prove that he tells lies. And this is from a team that claims openness, transparency and moral propriety. These are facts rather than opinions and it would take a wilful disregard of facts and a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance to see this in any other way....but, of course, _some _people will believe what they _want _to believe, especially when it concerns an issue of national identity which might form part of one's personal identity.

Equally, it doesnt mean that every statement made against Team Sky is true, and there is a whole world of knee-jerk stupidity to be witnessed from some posters in the aforementioned cycling forum sub-board. We now know that Sky's claims of whiter than whiteness are untrue. We know that they have quite deliberately acted in a way that is in contradiction to their stated intentions. We know that Wiggins has told falsehoods. We know that Brailsford has too and we know that his excuses dont really wash. What we dont yet know is whether Sky have used banned PEDs such as EPO, Aicar or whatever, or indeed PEDs that are yet to be banned. Of course the subterfuge surrounding an attempt at killing the 'package' story, and then despite knowing that the package story was coming and having time to factfind and prepare for it Brailsford chose to publish two key statements that were then revealed to be untrue. Why did he do this? 

Think about that for a moment. 

The fact remains that if the head of a cycling team has been summoned to be interrogated by a Parliamentary committee concerned with cheating in sport it's a reflection of _their serious concerns _as to the ethics of Team Sky, and the damage this is doing to the standing of UK sport as a whole.


----------



## rich p (27 Dec 2016)

The 'Clinic' jibe was in reference to the crass stupidity of you conflating the TUE fiasco with Froome's supposedly superhuman performances. That's perfect fodder for the clinic.
What you've stated above is far more thoughtful and the only criticism is that it has been said on this forum and thread many many times. It's not new. We all know what's already in the public domain and repeating it every few weeks doesn't add to the debate.
What are Sky supposedly guilty of then?
Sailing close to the wind but staying on the legal side. Oh well, I can live with a bit of hypocrisy in sport that isn't actually illegal.
Transporting a package across borders containing an innocuous substance? Hmmm, so what? What are the witchfinders suggesting might have been in the package? EPO? Spangles? Pile cream? HGH? 
Which is why some of us are saying, (and have been saying long before a new poster appeared to educate us) there are questions we'd like answered but until there is more evidence, rather than DM type speculation and hyperbole, we'll reserve judgment.
That may be final word on this thread until something new actually happens.


----------



## SheilaH (27 Dec 2016)

You need to check you understand what the word 'conflate' means before you accuse _me of "_crass stupidity" 



SheilaH said:


> Curiously, though, the stink over Wiggins's hidden TUEs and his mystery package have taken the heat off Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.



.......because there is no conflation going on here. Quite the opposite in fact. Still, there is no accounting for one's readers' reading comprehension.

Quite how you think the issues raised in my posts have been discussed 'many many times' when they are off the back of recent events (the hearing was barely a little more than a week ago ) is beyond me, but I can see from your final comment that you are very keen to shut this discussion down.

Of course, that isn't up to you, its up to the rest of us. The only control you have over this is whether you choose to contribute. Given that you have absolutely nothing to contribute beyond assumptions ("an innocuous substance"...nobody, least of all the MPs bought that one, which is why they have asked for documentary proof) your decision to withdraw from this thread is a good one


----------



## coldash (27 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Of course, that isn't up to you, its up to the rest of us. The only control you have over this is whether you choose to contribute. Given that you have absolutely nothing to contribute beyond assumptions ("an innocuous substance"...nobody, least of all the MPs bought that one, which is why they have asked for documentary proof) your decision to withdraw from this thread is a good one


Not sure who "we" and "the rest of us" are but it might help if you named who you believe on the BC and Sky squads from, say 2009 onwards were on the juice including the track teams. For the time being, you can ignore known TUEs


----------



## SheilaH (27 Dec 2016)

Im not sure who "we" are either, since there is no "we" in the post you quote.

Not sure why you cant understand what "the rest of us" means.I would have thought it blatantly obvious that itvrefers to all those who wish to post on this thread.

Not sure either why you are now inviting me to speculate. Im not interested in that. Im interested in facts.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Dec 2016)

@rich p 's Christmas presents


----------



## Viking (27 Dec 2016)

On a more general point I found it interesting that, AIUI, apart from UKAD and WADA (and UCI, BC?) only the team doctor and the rider knew/knows about the TUEs or any other medication unless the rider chose/chooses to share that information. This is attributed to the doctor – patient confidentiality relationship. Although I believe that this information is now discussed/ratified by a pool of medical people within the team, that only extends the doctor part to doctor*s*. How then can any team principal, of any team, state that their team is clean when there is a vital part of the audit trail required to justify this statement not within their remit or control.

This is not (just) a Sky point nor just a TUE issue (where there is independent involvement) but extends to any jurisdiction where the doctor – patient confidentiality relationship over-rules all else.

An independent third party might be the answer. WADA is one possibility (but they have their plate full at present) but not a national anti-doping agency given recent history. However, it looks like a huge and uncontrolled exposure in the overall governance. If I’ve got this wrong and there is an independent control, I’m happy to be corrected.

And, to repeat this is not directed at any specific team or individual or indeed sport.


----------



## coldash (27 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Not sure either why you are now inviting me to speculate. Im not interested in that. Im interested in facts.


Oh gone on. Elaborate on the Froome's unbelievable performance stuff you mentioned earlier. I'm interested in the underlying facts that you used. Do you think malpractice is team-wide or limited to some individuals


----------



## oldroadman (27 Dec 2016)

All very interesting. What popped out at me was that people are suggesting that the MPs are in the slightest interested in the allegaed subject, or have any knowledge of it, or have done any research. What they are good at is grandstanding and being "look at us a powerful select committee" giving people a hard time. Now there may or may not be something amiss, but I'm content to wait until a report if published to find out what WADA/UKAD know (if they know anything worth publishing). I watched the hearing online, The BC directors (all unpaid volunteers) were roasted by what looked like a backside cover by UKAD. I doubt the truth of what UKAD did will ever be verified. The people on the money were different. SS gave back as good as he got. DB fronted up on the package contents. Just remember this was 2011 not last season! BC and Sky pro team now appear to be very disconnected, operate as separate entities, and I guess after 31 December will be totally apart. HSBC won't want any part of the past, they have even more money than Sky I suspect, and will use it to leverage every last bit of high quality corporate PR out of the deal. In a year's time it will all be old news, then people can get back to what they seem to like, knocking the decent people who volunteer at board level about their particular fantasy.
Anyway if MPs REALLY want to look into sport and doping, they might look at the UKAD list and ask to see the RFU, LTA, British Athletics, the weightlifting NGB. All of whom have people on the list and are hardly high profile in rooting out the problem. Credit to BC for that, dirty linen washed in public without any inhibition. Or would people prefer it was all done quietly with riders being "injured" like players in certain other sports?


----------



## rich p (27 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> @rich p 's Christmas presents


Piss off ya scotch git.

Am I right in thinking that Kenny Elissonde will be Murdoch black next season?


----------



## SheilaH (27 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> Oh gone on. Elaborate on the Froome's unbelievable performance stuff you mentioned earlier



Let's remind ourselves of what I said...



SheilaH said:


> Curiously, though, the stink over Wiggins's hidden TUEs and his mystery package have taken the heat off Froome, even though his performances per se are far more unbelievable than Wiggins's.



And you'd like me to answer this...

.


> I'm interested in the underlying facts that you used. Do you think malpractice is team-wide or limited to some individuals



'Unbelievable' means that I do not believe it. It doesn't mean that there needs to be a body of facts to underpin this belief (ask any Christian). However, there is a rationale, and that rationale is that Froome's progress as a rider does not, on the whole, mirror that of other previous Tour winners. Other previous Tour winners have on the whole displayed their innate talent through prodigious victories from an early age, and major victories as a pro. Froome did not. In fact Froome was very much in the lower half of peloton talent, a rider who's palmares were unremarkable. Froome had no pedigree. In fact, it would be fair to say that a whole backstory has been put out that seeks to explain Froome's lack of pedigree (lost white boy in Africa pedalling through the jungle with undiagnosed Bilhazia bla bla bla) Froome went from a peloton nobody to a GT podium rider in one step. Not a progressive rise, but one step. It is arguable that he may have been higher up on that podium in Spain '11 had he not been riding for Wiggins, just as it is arguable that he may have won the '12 Tour had he been team captain.

So who does this rise from nobody to world beater look like? It looks like riders like Ricco. Do I find this believable? No I dont. How is he doing it? I wouldnt like to speculate, but I struggle to believe that it is a natural transformation. Is this a radical view? No I dont think it is. I think you'll find the sports writer, Paul Kimmage, has been saying much the same.

How does this relate to the thread? In exactly the way I said it did. In terms of the TUE scandal, Froome has come out of it rather well.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Other previous Tour winners have on the whole displayed their innate talent through prodigious victories from an early age, and major victories as a pro.


Apart from Armstrong, not that he has any Tour victories...although there are very few Tour winners who have been clean or without suspicion. There cannot be many - Evans? LeMond? Sastre? Wiggins? Froome?


----------



## SheilaH (27 Dec 2016)

Indeed. In the context of winning Tours, its a little odd that people start screaming blue murder when one points out that Froome might, in one respect, be just like previous Tour winners


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Let's remind ourselves of what I said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If it is a matter of belief then there is no way forward just like religious debates. Froome has a bit more pedigree than you give him credit for but that won't change the thrust of your argument. I discount Kimmage because he went into Clinic mode some time ago, although to his credit he has highlighted rugby as having proven problems.

IMHO, Froome is certainly an outlier. Whether this is natural, developed or aided in some unspecified way is not known. In that case, I regard him as not guilty until proven otherwise. While this state remains, we will never agree, not least because of the "you can't prove a negative" angle

What about the team-wide aspect. Do you think they are all on the juice?


----------



## SWSteve (28 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> If it is a matter of belief then there is no way forward just like religious debates. Froome has a bit more pedigree than you give him credit for but that won't change the thrust of your argument. I discount Kimmage because he went into Clinic mode some time ago, although to his credit he has highlighted rugby as having proven problems.
> 
> IMHO, Froome is certainly an outlier. Whether this is natural, developed or aided in some unspecified way is not known. In that case, I regard him as not guilty until proven otherwise. While this state remains, we will never agree, not least because of the "you can't prove a negative" angle
> 
> What about the team-wide aspect. Do you think they are all on the juice?




If they were all in the juice we might have seen more from swift and kennaugh


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> If they were all in the juice we might have seen more from swift and kennaugh


I don't think the team are on the juice because I can't see the supporting evidence but am trying to see whether people do regard it as a time-wide approach. In contrast with LA ("I never failed a drug test") there was evidence and corroborated accounts


----------



## oldroadman (28 Dec 2016)

Anyone who starts quoting Mr Kimmage (aka MR Campaign) is probably on a loser. That gentleman became obsessional then could find no evidence to support his interesting theories. I wonder if he has managed to do the same with rugby - ah, no, might get a visit from a few big lads...


----------



## ColinJ (28 Dec 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Anyone who starts quoting Mr Kimmage (aka MR Campaign) is probably on a loser. That gentleman became obsessional then could find no evidence to support his interesting theories. I wonder if he has managed to do the same with rugby - ah, no, might get a visit from a few big lads...


I'm not sure that a visit from a peeved Lance Armstrong would be a very pleasant experience either!


----------



## SheilaH (28 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> If it is a matter of belief then there is no way forward just like religious debates. Froome has a bit more pedigree than you give him credit for but that won't change the thrust of your argument. I discount Kimmage because he went into Clinic mode some time ago, although to his credit he has highlighted rugby as having proven problems.
> 
> IMHO, Froome is certainly an outlier. Whether this is natural, developed or aided in some unspecified way is not known. In that case, I regard him as not guilty until proven otherwise. While this state remains, we will never agree, not least because of the "you can't prove a negative" angle
> 
> What about the team-wide aspect. Do you think they are all on the juice?



Thats interesting, your post was edited by a moderator. I missed the original. Probably a good thing.

You ask me about whether I think the whole of Team Sky are 'juiced' and by this I assume you mean banned substances rather than Wiggins-style use of known PEDs enabled by the TUE system?

The answer is I dont know and Im not going to speculate. Im not going to speculate on Froome's potential use of banned substances either because I don't know and I have no evidence. What I do know is that Froome's sudden progress is not normal. You agree with this because you say he is an "outlier". That, however, still does not explain why it is that his enormous talent didnt show itself at an earlier date.

With regards to Kimmage, you say that "he went into clinic mode", but you dont expand on what you mean by this. What I will say about Kimmage is that he accused Armstrong outright of being a doper and years later was proved right. He hasnt done the same with Team Sky. He has questioned the sincerity of their 'whiter than white' mantra and again, with the Fancy Bears hack release of Wiggins's TUE use before major stage races in contradiction of Sky's stated policy, yet again he has been proved right. All along he has said that Team Sky have questions to answer and that is something with which even those defending Sky on this thread seem to accept.


----------



## smutchin (28 Dec 2016)

Froome's "unbelievable" progress in the sport is not really any less believable than that of Cadel Evans, who waited until his mid-30s to become a world-beater on the road.

And Carlos Sastre hardly set the world alight before he won the Tour.

Ryder Hesjedal is another late bloomer...

Trouble is, it's hard to say what is and isn't plausible when there are so few reliable benchmarks to compare against in the recent history of the sport. Or even the long term history of the sport.


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> Thats interesting, your post was edited by a moderator. I missed the original. Probably a good thing.


Was it? I can't think why. It doesn't look any different to me and certainly didn't contain anything offensive or personal. I haven't been contacted by a moderator so I've no idea what the score is

Any idea how I find out?

PS. I've reported your post solely to ask the mods what is going on. It's not a complaint against you in any way

MOD INFORMATION EDIT:
The post was Edited to remove a double-quote of SheilaH's post. That's all.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (28 Dec 2016)

Wasn't Froome a late bloomer because of the parasitic infection that wasn't found until after he joined Sky?


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

smutchin said:


> Froome's "unbelievable" progress in the sport is not really any less believable than that of Cadel Evans, who waited until his mid-30s to become a world-beater on the road.
> 
> And Carlos Sastre hardly set the world alight before he won the Tour.
> 
> ...


Agreed but with Ryder we do know what helped him at some point in his career


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> .What I do know is that Froome's sudden progress is not normal. You agree with this because you say he is an "outlier".


No, that is not what I meant. What I mean is that his current performance is that of an outlier. Whether that is due to his vastly improved power to weight ratio, the curing of the illness that I can't spell, the training or the factor x that people alleged, I don't know. His progress is another matter and has been pointed out, not altogether atypical. I'm not sure this changes / adds much, I know!

I think that Quintana is also an outlier


----------



## SheilaH (28 Dec 2016)

smutchin said:


> Froome's "unbelievable" progress in the sport is not really any less believable than that of Cadel Evans, who waited until his mid-30s to become a world-beater on the road.
> 
> And Carlos Sastre hardly set the world alight before he won the Tour.
> 
> ...



To be fair Evans was a latish arrival to the road, coming from MTB where he had won the World Cup, twice. Also, we know that Evans has admitted to working with Ferrari...although he claims it was not for doping advice.

More to the point though, Evans, Sastre and Hesjedal are not appropriate comparators to Froome. Evans and Sastre won one Tour apiece, Hesjedal has no Tour wins (but one Giro).

Froome has 3 Tour wins. It is arguable that he could have had 5 wins by now if he hadnt crashed out in 2014, and if he had ridden for himself in 2012, which would have made him one of the five greatest Tour riders ever. 

And he hasnt finished yet....he may still get to 5. But as it stands he is still in a totally different league to Evans, Hesjedal and Sastre. His current Tour record is akin to Lemond, his potential Tour record is akin to Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil and Merckx....and we all know that they were not late bloomers.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Dec 2016)

Anybody who wins a Grand Tour is going to be an _'outlier'_; if they were _'normal'_ then they would not be good enough to do it!

The question is, were they _born_ an outlier, or _boosted_ to become one ...


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

*SheilaH*. In case you didn't see this note from the Mods



> The post was Edited to remove a double-quote of SheilaH's post. That's all.


----------



## smutchin (28 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> To be fair Evans was a latish arrival to the road, coming from MTB where he had won the World Cup, twice.



Yeah, hence I specified road in my post. MTB and Road are very different. How many people successfully make that transition?



> More to the point though, Evans, Sastre and Hesjedal are not appropriate comparators to Froome. Evans and Sastre won one Tour apiece, Hesjedal has no Tour wins (but one Giro).



You call Froome a late bloomer but he's still younger than any of those three were when they won their GTs. He's also younger than Horner when he won the Vuelta. 



> would have made him one of the five greatest Tour riders ever.



There's also the possibility that he is that good... and competing in a cleaner era (cleaner, not clean). And maybe also pushing the limits of the rules more than his rivals...



> his potential Tour record is akin to Indurain, Hinault, Anquetil and Merckx....and we all know that they were not late bloomers.



We also know that the sport was very different in their day, in many ways. We also know Anquetil's publicly stated attitude to doping and that Merckx was busted three times.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2016)

smutchin said:


> He's also younger than Horner when he won the Vuelta.


@rich p and I are younger than Horner when he won the Vuelta!!


----------



## SheilaH (28 Dec 2016)

He might be that good.

But why did he only become that good in the autumn 2011, when a few months previously he had been really quite crap?

Did the sport suddenly become cleaner in a matter of weeks? From dirty to clean (er) in the space of a summer?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2016)

Whay aboot Sirbrad? He couldnae even ride a bike proper

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qMM2r_42bA


----------



## coldash (28 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> @rich p and I are younger than Horner when he won the Vuelta!!


I'm not sure this proves much in that I think Methuselah was younger than Horner. Now that was a race that left a few questions unanswered (I know this is OT)


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2016)

I don't have page 55 to continue...

I do, however, know the answer to 6 across


----------



## DRM (28 Dec 2016)

Wiggo announced his retirement today, the media can now congratulate themselves on having built up a British sporting hero, so that they can destroy him, it'll probably be Andy Murray in the next couple of years, newspapers are so shoot these days that they aren't fit to wrap fish & chips in.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2016)

DRM said:


> Wiggo announced his retirement today, the media can now congratulate themselves on having built up a British sporting hero, so that they can destroy him, it'll probably be Andy Murray in the next couple of years, newspapers are so shoot these days that they aren't fit to wrap fish chips in.


The media did not "build him up" nor did they "destroy him". Any speculation is down to Sky. Well, it's down to Sirbrad and Sirdave.


----------



## SWSteve (28 Dec 2016)

smutchin said:


> He's also younger than Horner when he won the Vuelta.



I don't think being a late boomer is the cause of this win


----------



## DRM (28 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> The media did not "build him up" nor did they "destroy him". Any speculation is down to Sky. Well, it's down to Sirbrad and Sirdave.


Not to people with an interest in bike racing, but they did with the general public, who show a passing interest in the T de F once a year, the olympics every four years etc, as with many a celebrity they then love to knock them down again, personally I too think that Sky, Sir Dave et al have made a bad situation worse with the cack handed way the whole thing has been handled, it doesn't help either when they say no one ever involved in doping will be employed by Sky, then they employ people who have doped, or provided the means to dope others, which is embarrassing to say the least when the team are supposed to be whiter than white, the longer this goes on, the worse it seems to those watching from the sidelines.


----------



## Viking (29 Dec 2016)

It is still difficult to tell much about the package if BC can't release the details because of UKAD but if Cope's trip was solely to deliver the package and wasn't "routine" that looks more questionable to me


----------



## SheilaH (29 Dec 2016)

The headline appears to be a bit deceptive. It suggests that BC cant support Wiggins because they have no evidence that will support him, but the report goes on to say they might have evidence but they cant access it because UKAD are controlling it.

However the stuff about Cope's journey is dynamite.

From the Daily Mail:

"Cope took a return train journey from Eastbourne to Manchester on June 8 to collect the package and had an overnight hotel stay at Gatwick Airport on June 11.

The next day he took a return flight to Geneva, hired a car and drove to La Toussuire to deliver the package in the now infamous jiffy bag, completing the return journey to the UK inside a day. If Wiggins was ill, why wait four days — and until the end of the race — to administer medication? Why not, as Wiggins' former doctor Prentice Steffen suggested last week, simply obtain the same medication which would cost eight euros at a local French pharmacy?"

As cover stories go its a bad one. If it is genuine, then it is very bizarre to plan a train journey to Manchester, a night in a hotel, two flights, a hire car journey, costing in total £600, when a quick trip to the four pharmacies in La Toussière could have furnished the medecine for €8. As MP Damian Collins remarked yesterday, the more details that emerge, the more questions need to be asked.

Im baffled as to why Wiggins has chosen to announce his retirement right now, in the middle of an investigation. Surely he'd have been better off waiting until the UKAD and the Parliamentary investigations were concluded and he was exonerated?


----------



## coldash (29 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> As cover stories go its a bad one. If it is genuine, then it is very bizarre to plan a train journey to Manchester, a night in a hotel, two flights, a hire car journey, costing in total £600, when a quick trip to the four pharmacies in La Toussière could have furnished the medecine for €8. As MP Damian Collins remarked yesterday, the more details that emerge, the more questions need to be asked.


If it is a cover story then it is poor. The Alain Baxter point mentioned earlier might still be relevant in which case they should say so. UKAD seem to be in no hurry to clarify anything. I wonder if there is some point scoring / payback going on


----------



## SheilaH (29 Dec 2016)

Who knows. UKAD got a kicking from the independent review after the Dan Stevens affair, including IIRC some excoriation from MPs, (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-bonar?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard)
so they will need to be making sure they actually do something this time. Of course, the Parliamentary investigation is taking place in the context of cheating in sport as a whole which really does put the crosshairs on UKAD for its efficacy.

With regards to the 'package' story there is almost nothing that has come out of Brailsford's mouth that hasnt either been proved untrue (destination of Cope, Wiggins's whereabouts at alledged time of administration of package contents) or is yet to be backed up (Fluimucil), and now we have evidence that undermines Brailsford's claim that sending Cope on an international journey that took £600 and 5 days to prepare and carry out was the easiest way to get a £6 pack of over the counter decongestant available in pharmacies of which there were 4 in La Toussiere, to Wiggins.

The MPs arent accepting Brailsford's testimony as credible, surprise surprise, although they are couching it in more temperate terms....so far.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (29 Dec 2016)

Nicole Cooke asking similar and different questions than we are
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/dec/29/nicole-cooke-team-sky-british-cycling?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Dec 2016)

Remind me never to piss off Nicole Cooke.


----------



## ColinJ (29 Dec 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> Remind me never to piss off Nicole Cooke.


Don't ever piss off Nicole Cooke!


----------



## ColinJ (29 Dec 2016)

ColinJ said:


> Don't ever piss off Nicole Cooke!


I was standing at a sharp bend at the foot of a fast descent at Rivington for the Commonwealth Games women's road race in 2002. Nicole Cooke 'overCooke-d' it and almost crashed, losing touch with the leading group as a result. She clipped back in, chased back on, and then won the sprint for the gold medal. I thought at the time that she was a very determined young woman.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Dec 2016)

I have all the time in the world for Nicole Cooke.


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Dec 2016)

I think none of our names are on her list. We're safe.


----------



## MrGrumpy (31 Dec 2016)

Nicole Cook is just confirming what we all knew in that women's cycling was treated second class to the men's . Getting back to the "package" , noted a comment about the Alain Baxter by someone and the hole he ended up in, it could well be the very reason they went to the lengths they did . However it does smell of sh.... and in the fullness of time if it does come out out that that doping was a cause then quite frankly it's hard to believe anything your told or witness on a cycling front. However the press in this country do have a habit of kicking folk in the spuds and putting them down .


----------



## SheilaH (31 Dec 2016)

We already know that Wiggins used the TUE system to dope. As Jonathan Vaughters (ex-USPS, Wiggins's manager at Garmin) said, repeated use of Kenalog before a GT us "as old school as it gets".


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Dec 2016)

This tweet made me laugh


----------



## coldash (31 Dec 2016)

We know that Wiggins applied for and was granted TUEs. Beyond this is, is at present, conjecture. 

Possibly the way forward is for all athletes in all sports to sign a waiver on confidentiality and for TUEs to be published. No waiver, no TUE granted.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (31 Dec 2016)

coldash said:


> We know that Wiggins applied for and was granted TUEs. Beyond this is, is at present, conjecture.
> 
> Possibly the way forward is for all athletes in all sports to sign a waiver on confidentiality and for TUEs to be published. No waiver, no TUE granted.


We also know he took the medication for which the TUE related.


----------



## DRM (31 Dec 2016)

Having had a think about this, it's funny that this "fancy bears" lot hacked & released all this TUE data, creating a complete shoot storm in the British press, knowing that the journalists will turn themselves inside out trying to make something from nothing, then Russia release a press statement,saying "oops we did dope our athletes, but it wasn't state sponsored, sorry" which hardly gets above a days coverage in the press, while they are so stuck on this TUE circus.
Now the use of a TUE is legal, other than being very badly handled, it's not as if Sky are sitting on the death star, attached to blood transfusions, while hiding used EPO vials in empty pop cans, they have pushed the boundaries, but this is not as things were in the past.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Dec 2016)

SheilaH said:


> We already know that Wiggins used the TUE system to dope. As Jonathan Vaughters (ex-USPS, Wiggins's manager at Garmin) said, repeated use of Kenalog before a GT us "as old school as it gets".


We also know that he's got an official/plausible cover in his TUE. He may well have drawn some therapeutic benefit and he may well have drawn some performance advantage. At the moment I can't see this really going anywhere apart from giving nobodies like us the chance to air our highly worthwhile opinions on the internet. 

I do wonder if, in terms of actual positive results, rather than just generating opinions, BC misuse of public funds on Sky projects might have a better chance of getting somewhere.


----------



## SheilaH (31 Dec 2016)

Except its not just nobodies like us commenting, its high up people in and around the sport, and of all those in that position who have had their comments on Wiggins reported I have yet to see one that defends him.

On the contrary, see comments from Tom Dumoulin, Marcel Kittel, David Walsh, Jonathan Vaughters etc.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (31 Dec 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> ...apart from giving nobodies like us the chance to air our highly worthwhile opinions on the internet.


It's nobodies like us that should matter most. 



Dogtrousers said:


> I do wonder if, in terms of actual positive results, rather than just generating opinions, BC misuse of public funds on Sky projects might have a better chance of getting somewhere.


I am not sure what you mean by "results", as I do not think anyone is calling for anyone to be sent to jail or shot.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Dec 2016)

Marmion said:


> *
> I am not sure what you mean by "results",* as I do not think anyone is calling for anyone to be sent to jail or shot.


Neither do I really. Just something other than us having opinions.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (31 Dec 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> Neither do I really. Just something other than us having opinions.


Opinions are usually the most important thing any of us can have*

*Another contender for me getting a knighthood for services to wisdom next year


----------



## oldroadman (31 Dec 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> We also know that he's got an official/plausible cover in his TUE. He may well have drawn some therapeutic benefit and he may well have drawn some performance advantage. At the moment I can't see this really going anywhere apart from giving nobodies like us the chance to air our highly worthwhile opinions on the internet.
> 
> I do wonder if, in terms of actual positive results, rather than just generating opinions,* BC misuse of public funds on Sky projects* might have a better chance of getting somewhere.



That's yet to be proved, if as BC say they billed Sky for the staff time. No doubt there's proof of that as the accountants will have logged it?
In any case, who says public funds were used? remember BC gets money from commercial partnerships and subscriptions too.
I'll not be surprised if all the UK sport and Sport England money is fairly tightly ring fenced around projects, as that's the way these public funding bodies like to operate.
So it could well be that BC spent money from their Sky partnership funds and then recharged it to Sky team, effectively Sky paid twice - result!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (31 Dec 2016)

oldroadman said:


> That's yet to be proved, if as BC say they billed Sky for the staff time. No doubt there's proof of that as the accountants will have logged it?
> In any case, who says public funds were used? remember BC gets money from commercial partnerships and subscriptions too.
> I'll not be surprised if all the UK sport and Sport England money is fairly tightly ring fenced around projects, as that's the way these public funding bodies like to operate.
> So it could well be that BC spent money from their Sky partnership funds and then recharged it to Sky team, effectively Sky paid twice - result!


The risk of "blurred lines" were warned of: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bri...ky-relationship-months-before-copes-delivery/


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Jan 2017)

You're right about it bein unproven @oldroadman I was just speculating about ways that this business might move to concrete results from incomplete information and opinions.


----------



## oldroadman (1 Jan 2017)

thank goodness this is just a forum for opinion. Some of the posts on here (and some I've seen on road.cc) seem to be forum anyone who wants to destroy BC. Quite why they would want to do that is their problem, but I'll bet they'll never put their heads above the parapet and try to get elected then actually DO SOMETHING. After all, in their world the BC board should go and be replaced by...what? A board appointed by the govt. who know and care stuff all about the sport, but are right-on PC, and won't worry if membership, participation falls and GB success disappears because they have done "the right thing".
Expressing opinion is one thing, calling for downfall and resignations based on hearsay and Daily Mail type rubbish...silly.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (1 Jan 2017)

oldroadman said:


> thank goodness this is just a forum for opinion. Some of the posts on here (and some I've seen on road.cc) seem to be forum anyone who wants to destroy BC. Quite why they would want to do that is their problem, but I'll bet they'll never put their heads above the parapet and try to get elected then actually DO SOMETHING. After all, in their world the BC board should go and be replaced by...what? A board appointed by the govt. who know and care stuff all about the sport, but are right-on PC, and won't worry if membership, participation falls and GB success disappears because they have done "the right thing".
> Expressing opinion is one thing, calling for downfall and resignations based on hearsay and Daily Mail type rubbish...silly.


Where is anyone calling for downfall and resignations?


----------



## smutchin (1 Jan 2017)

Marmion said:


> Where is anyone calling for downfall and resignations?



Don't mention downfall, it will only tempt someone to post one of those stupid spoof videos...


----------



## Supersuperleeds (1 Jan 2017)

smutchin said:


> Don't mention downfall, it will only tempt someone to post one of those stupid spoof videos...



This is better than the videos


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2017)

oldroadman said:


> thank goodness this is just a forum for opinion. Some of the posts on here (and some I've seen on road.cc) seem to be forum anyone who wants to destroy BC. Quite why they would want to do that is their problem, but I'll bet they'll never put their heads above the parapet and try to get elected then actually DO SOMETHING.


They won't get elected. They probably won't even get nominated because nominations can only come from regional councils or national board - those who set the current direction! 

The BC system is only one step away from becoming fully self-propagating like Sustrans. If you don't know the full horror of it, see https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/a...d-in-the-governance-of-British-Cycling-0?c=EN - the importance of a vibrant and accountable governance is clear from "This year... 2015" 

The BC president getting returned unopposed is just the crux of the problem: BC is not currently a functioning democracy.



> After all, in their world the BC board should go and be replaced by...what? A board appointed by the govt.


No. How about democracy? Open nominations, hold some Q&As and debates, then let members vote, with proportional representation... but I doubt the veteran shirts (veteran jerseys?) mostly in charge will let that happen because it might see minorities elected rather than chosen ones appointed. Nicole Cooke on the board, anyone? Now that would be a refreshing change.

Personally, I'm mostly happy to ignore BC except when its rule fetishisms hinder charity events, but you did ask...


----------



## oldroadman (3 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> They won't get elected. They probably won't even get nominated because nominations can only come from regional councils or national board - those who set the current direction!
> 
> The BC system is only one step away from becoming fully self-propagating like Sustrans. If you don't know the full horror of it, see https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/a...d-in-the-governance-of-British-Cycling-0?c=EN - the importance of a vibrant and accountable governance is clear from "This year... 2015"
> 
> ...


Well we should always be open to new thinking. What BC has become is a business and may well need a board which reflects that. The current set up (I just checked my handbook) is an electoral college, and your point about enfranchisement is interesting. The main thing seems to me that people who know how to run a business need to be in place. The existing board seems to come from volunteers with a sport background, and there has to be a place for them too.
It would take a massive change, and whether the members would accept it, who knows until they are asked, how many would actually even be interested enough to take part in any kind of survey where they would have to think about what they want rather than just slag off the current board/staff/officials? Which is a uniquely British sport!
Don't understand the last bit, what rules of racing (fetishisms?) affect charity rides?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (3 Jan 2017)

oldroadman said:


> ...rather than just slag off the current board/staff/officials? Which is a uniquely British sport!


You keep making sweeping statements which cannot be backed up.


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2017)

oldroadman said:


> The current set up (I just checked my handbook) is an electoral college, and your point about enfranchisement is interesting.


And how are the members of that electoral college appointed? Is there any excuse for continuing with an electoral college now that communications are so quick and easy?



oldroadman said:


> whether the members would accept it, who knows until they are asked,


I think "HSBC UK British Cycling" members will accept almost anything. They know what they're getting: BOGU. Membership numbers have gone _up_ and I think the president and board returned unopposed yet again (I can't find the 2016 election results - can you?) despite the reported sexism and disability-discrimination at BC's highest levels last year. Also, when was the last time the members were asked a binding question?



oldroadman said:


> Don't understand the last bit, what rules of racing (fetishisms?) affect charity rides?


https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/velo-birmingham-anyone-applying.207238/post-4493356 amongst others. HSBC UK BC has a sportive-shaped cookie-cutter and insists that charity events conform or don't get listed.


----------



## User169 (3 Jan 2017)

Wiggins to take part in The Jump


----------



## oldroadman (3 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> And how are the members of that electoral college appointed? Is there any excuse for continuing with an electoral college now that communications are so quick and easy?
> 
> 
> I think "HSBC UK British Cycling" members will accept almost anything. They know what they're getting: BOGU. Membership numbers have gone _up_ and I think the president and board returned unopposed yet again (I can't find the 2016 election results - can you?) despite the reported sexism and disability-discrimination at BC's highest levels last year. Also, when was the last time the members were asked a binding question?
> ...


Looking at the BC site it seems that events registered with BC (for which I suppose they get insurance cover) have a full listing. Some events not registered with BC are still on the site but without much detail except a link to the organisation running it. Now if you were insuring something perhaps you might want to do what you can to keep things as safe and claim free as possible, or may even have the insurers insisting on conditions of cover? I don't know.
But there are sportives and "charity rides" which sometimes are one and the same, and sometimes are not, I can't imagine BC would want to take on the local Rotary club 25km potter to help them raise a few bob for their charity of choice. Just because a sportive rider is doing a bit of fund raising it's still a sportive (or non-categorised road racing to some of those who prefer not to take part in real races).


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2017)

The actions BC require organisers to take have little to do with safety, what with there being no evidence for them, and everything to do with various bigotries, from the old one against recumbent cycles to some much more modern ones.

Does The Jump drug test its athletes?


----------



## HF2300 (7 Jan 2017)

Froome tells the BBC that WADA must tighten TUE regs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38534318


----------



## SheilaH (8 Jan 2017)

HF2300 said:


> Froome tells the BBC that WADA must tighten TUE regs:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38534318



Funny that Froome should have had an attack of morality during the 2015 Tour.

He had no such qualms one year earlier when he applied for a TUE for banned corticosteroids prior to the Tour de Romandie and had it fast-tracked, so that he could compete in that race. 

He must have really needed it, poor lamb. Must be terrible having to race against world class competitors when you are so poorly that you need 40mg per day of Prednisolone.

Still, winning the overall race and winning the final time trial in front of world TT champion Tony Martin probably made up for feeling so poorly.


----------



## smutchin (8 Jan 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Still, winning the overall race and winning the final time trial in front of world TT champion Tony Martin probably made up for feeling so poorly.



Zing!


----------



## smutchin (8 Jan 2017)

DP said:


> Wiggins to take part in The Jump



An apt metaphor for his retirement - jumping before he was pushed.

Strictly next year?


----------



## SWSteve (8 Jan 2017)

smutchin said:


> An apt metaphor for his retirement - jumping before he was pushed.
> 
> Strictly next year?



Maybe the elastic nature of his retirement/career/retirement/career/retirement finally snapped and his management told him to pack it in (the needle hanging above him probably helped Fuller tell Wiggins what to do)


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (8 Jan 2017)

smutchin said:


> Strictly next year?



Maybe they'll register the drugs link and think he'll be great at the "Pass a Doobie"


----------



## ColinJ (8 Jan 2017)

smutchin said:


> An apt metaphor for his retirement - jumping before he was pushed.
> 
> *Strictly next year?*


Cav will be able to give him some great tips!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (10 Jan 2017)

Here's Sirdave speaking with his hands, claiming no rules were broken and the TUE thing was "regrettable", but he's not so sure about Froomedog's faith in him
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38573615


----------



## Dave Davenport (10 Jan 2017)

Marmion said:


> Here's Sirdave speaking with his hands, claiming no rules were broken and the TUE thing was "regrettable", but he's not so sure about Froomedog's faith in him
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38573615


Hmmmm......is he thinking of going into politics 'cause he's sounding just like a politician in that interview.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (10 Jan 2017)

Dave Davenport said:


> Hmmmm......is he thinking of going into politics 'cause he's sounding just like a politician in that interview.


He always has, it's just that previously he has not had to field difficult questions*

*edit - not that the questions were that difficult!


----------



## ColinJ (10 Jan 2017)

Marmion said:


> He always has, it's just that previously he has not had to field difficult questions*
> 
> *edit - not that the questions were that difficult!


All the way through that interview I kept thinking of Tyler Hamilton .. Once he was put in front of a Grand Jury and was told that he could face serious jail time if his testimony before them were found to be false, suddenly out came the truth!

Two things strike me about Dave Brailsford ...

He seems to be the kind of leader who would keep very close control of what was going on in his organisation.
If there happened to be something that he wanted to know, but _DIDN'T_ know, he would have the people who _DID_ know in his office ASAP and demand that they explain things to him.
All this talk of_ trying to discover_ what happened, _searching for evidence_ etc. just sounds like building a future defence based on ignorance of events.


----------



## SheilaH (10 Jan 2017)

Interesting. Some of his points were fair, some werent.

His opening critiscism of the UKAD CEO was just wrong. The UKAD guy was commenting on the answers DB gave at the Parliamentary hearing....which is not part of the UKAD investigation. Therefore the UKAD man was not commenting on his own investigation, as DB claimed. 

He looked and sounded very rattled.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Jan 2017)

Sirdave has "lost touch" and is "too clever for his own good" according to the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...cycling-control?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WhatsApp


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Jan 2017)

Fran "sister of doper-come-anti-doping-Jesus David" Millar doesnae half blether some pish
http://road.cc/content/news/215997-...ams-cant-be-transparent-–-they-need-be-honest

It's starting to sound pathetic now.


----------



## SheilaH (21 Jan 2017)

Given the constant transfer of riders between teams, you wonder how any team can keep its training techniques secret.

Besides, what have secret training techniques got to do with using TUEs to get known PEDs banged in Wiggins's arse right before every major stage race...


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

Aha! The Chewbacca defence rides again!


----------



## Dogtrousers (24 Jan 2017)

Nicole Cooke's written submission (pdf)
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev.../combatting-doping-in-sport/written/45898.pdf


----------



## smutchin (24 Jan 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Nicole Cooke's written submission (pdf)
> http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev.../combatting-doping-in-sport/written/45898.pdf



That's awesome. 

Can we make Nicole Cooke the next UCI president, please?


----------



## ColinJ (24 Jan 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Nicole Cooke's written submission (pdf)
> http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev.../combatting-doping-in-sport/written/45898.pdf


Yeah, but apart from _that_ ... everything is perfectly okay!


----------



## MrGrumpy (24 Jan 2017)

OOoft, that is a huge kick in the spuds  Nothing worse than a women scorned, I really hope this will lift the lid on everything !!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Jan 2017)

smutchin said:


> That's awesome.
> 
> Can we make Nicole Cooke the next UCI president, please?


Where do I vote?


----------



## Dave Davenport (24 Jan 2017)

Crumbs!


----------



## roadrash (24 Jan 2017)

give her the job now ....


----------



## steve292 (24 Jan 2017)

Thats pretty damning on a few fronts.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

Marmion said:


> Where do I vote?


You're a member of Scottish Cycling, aren't you? It claims to be "the national governing body for cycling in Scotland". Ask them when you get to vote for a UCI president. The answer may be hilarious. Or hilarity. Like the rest of BC, there's only a vestigal democracy left and that's probably part of the reason they're not clamping down on doping - the dopers have more power than the fans.

Like Nicole Cooke writes, the "governance structure at the National Federation – British Cycling - ... is not responsible to anyone other than itself for its own actions. ... [On doping, it's] _the wrong people fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way, with the wrong tools._ Since both of these require the support and activity of management involved in the governance of sports, at a variety of levels, there are obviously areas of mutual inclusivity in the problematic areas."

It's cracking stuff. I'll read the rest later.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> You're a member of Scottish Cycling, aren't you? It claims to be "the national governing body for cycling in Scotland". Ask them when you get to vote for a UCI president. The answer may be hilarious. Or hilarity. Like the rest of BC, there's only a vestigal democracy left and that's probably part of the reason they're not clamping down on doping - the dopers have more power than the fans.
> 
> Like Nicole Cooke writes, the "governance structure at the National Federation – British Cycling - ... is not responsible to anyone other than itself for its own actions. ... [On doping, it's] _the wrong people fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way, with the wrong tools._ Since both of these require the support and activity of management involved in the governance of sports, at a variety of levels, there are obviously areas of mutual inclusivity in the problematic areas."
> 
> It's cracking stuff. I'll read the rest later.


Am I? I am a member of British Cycling but not sure of the membership links between the two, I had always thought Scottish Cycling was just the bit of BC that was thrown some bawbees to cover stuff up here and not a separate entity.

Anyway, it's immaterial as it would have same outcome. I really just need to accept I am unlikely to race again rather than renew every year then not ride.


----------



## Crackle (24 Jan 2017)

I'd temper everything that Cooke says with her ability to be a loner in a crowd.


----------



## SheilaH (24 Jan 2017)

Crackle said:


> I'd temper everything that Cooke says with her ability to be a loner in a crowd



In the sense that she is brave enough to fight those in positions of power when others arent?

Yes, I agree.


----------



## oldroadman (26 Jan 2017)

Crackle said:


> I'd temper everything that Cooke says with her ability to be a loner in a crowd.


having read it, and her book some while ago, it's mainly quotes from that, and opinion mostly. Where's the fish shop? Needs to find one to balance the chip on the other shoulder (although the "submission" reads like the stuff Mr Cooke senior used to push out).
No doubt about the talent and ability, interesting that plenty of riders had no desire to be on a team with Ms Cooke, and if I recall correctly when her own team collapsed, didn't BC rescue the situation by creating a women's team (with a few token men) built around her? Selective memory about some things. But this was all about 10 years ago and things have moved on a bit since then. Some people like to bash BC based on opinion, and sometimes I expect they need bashing. personally I'd rather wait to see what comes out of the UKAD report (not a BC issue as anti-doping is now all under UKAD's remit).


----------



## SheilaH (27 Jan 2017)

oldroadman said:


> having read it, and her book some while ago, it's mainly quotes from that, and opinion mostly. Where's the fish shop? Needs to find one to balance the chip on the other shoulder (although the "submission" reads like the stuff Mr Cooke senior used to push out).
> No doubt about the talent and ability, interesting that plenty of riders had no desire to be on a team with Ms Cooke, and if I recall correctly when her own team collapsed, didn't BC rescue the situation by creating a women's team (with a few token men) built around her? Selective memory about some things. But this was all about 10 years ago and things have moved on a bit since then. Some people like to bash BC based on opinion, and sometimes I expect they need bashing. personally I'd rather wait to see what comes out of the UKAD report (not a BC issue as anti-doping is now all under UKAD's remit).



A snide, victim-blaming, smear attempt and personal attack on a woman, giving clear evidence on the institutional patriarchy (and incompetence) of British Cycling, and the disinterest and ineptitude of UKAD, following hot on the heels of the Jess Varnish affair which cited similar issues, and a parliamentary comittee investigating the Dan Stevens affair which ended with an excoriation of UKAD by an external review. So yeah...lets wait for the UKAD verdict 

Really classy, oldroadman, and not just a little dumb.

Meanwhile, the review conducted into BC/Sky by UK Sport has concluded. It is going to be made public next month, but key players have already received copies. Key player, Ian Drake, CEO of BC, has brought forward his planned resignation with immediate effect. Cant imagine there is a connection...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Jan 2017)

I've listened to some of the shoot talked about Nicole Cooke by older men involved in British Cycling in the past, and @oldroadman's patronising sexist guff is typical. However, a lot of it was even worse, centred on her looks, rumours about her sex life and suchlike. Cooke was an enormous talent, probably the most naturally gifted cyclist Britain has ever had, but she never achieved as much as she could have done because she has a brain in her head and isn't afraid to use it and she refused to conform to norms of femininity and 'knowing her place.' She is unequivocally my favourite British cyclist precisely because of this.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Jan 2017)

A quite bizarre article on CN, "sexism still exists but it's ok-er now"
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/barker-sexism-in-cycling-is-not-always-blatantly-obvious/


----------



## Crackle (27 Jan 2017)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Cooke was an enormous talent, probably the most naturally gifted cyclist Britain has ever had


She is arguably the single greatest British road racing cyclist we've ever had up to now.


----------



## Viking (28 Jan 2017)

Agreed that Cooke was a great and underappreciated talent when she was competing but IMV, Beryl Burton has a good claim on the "greatest ever etc" honours.


----------



## Crackle (28 Feb 2017)

Wiggins doctor will not be attending the Select Comittee's hearing, he's ill. A jiffy bag has been dispatched via France.


----------



## mjr (1 Mar 2017)

Live at 2pm at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/848600f4-b496-434b-90d4-8544753566d8

Edit: looks like Flash required. Welcome to the 1990s 

Edit edit: Also on BBC Parliament on TV and online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08j3fn9


----------



## Bollo (1 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> Wiggins doctor will not be attending the Select Comittee's hearing, he's ill. A jiffy bag has been dispatched via France.


Remember it's important to add after EVERY comment about this story that Sir Bradley Wiggins is not accused of any wrongdoing.(c) BBC 2017

And also Mo Farah.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (1 Mar 2017)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39128672

She said: "Team Sky did have a policy of keeping records, just not everyone was adhering to it"


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39128672
> 
> She said: "Team Sky did have a policy of keeping records, just not everyone was adhering to it"


We generally have a policy of believing Team Sky, just not everyone is adhering to it.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39128672


I also liked this:

Questioned on why he did not ask what was in the package, [Cope] said: "Why would I question it? Why would I question the integrity of our governing body? I just didn't ask. You may think I'm stupid. It must have been something medical, because it was for Dr Freeman, but I had no reason to doubt it. Throughout my career, I've looked up to our governing body. We've done so well and with a zero-tolerance stance [on doping]."
So, was that "zero-tolerance stance" basically everyone not asking any questions?

Also, "Cope - who now manages Wiggins' professional road-racing team" - so no opportunity for pressure to be put on him through his current job, then?


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (2 Mar 2017)

Dog ate my homework.


----------



## iLB (2 Mar 2017)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/v...ley-wiggins-police-bbc-reporter-package-video


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Mar 2017)

iLB said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/v...ley-wiggins-police-bbc-reporter-package-video


Get orf my lahhhnndddd


----------



## uclown2002 (2 Mar 2017)

Where are the Sky fan-boys?


----------



## Crackle (2 Mar 2017)

The oddest thing about that is the buzzer to the house on a gate you can step over. Perhaps it's a sophisticated cat flap or he's trained his dog to use it.


----------



## rich p (2 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> The oddest thing about that is the buzzer to the house on a gate you can step over. Perhaps it's a sophisticated cat flap or he's trained his dog to use it.


Marginal gates...


----------



## Dave Davenport (2 Mar 2017)

Can't remember what the thread was but a couple of years ago I said that I felt pretty sure that Wiggins/Sky were clean but that I wouldn't bet my house on it, I wouldn't bet my shed on it today (and it's a pretty ropy shed at that).


----------



## HF2300 (2 Mar 2017)

iLB said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/v...ley-wiggins-police-bbc-reporter-package-video



Got to say whatever the rights and wrongs I'm a bit dubious about silly doorstepping tactics. I can't help feeling the media these days use doorstepping not so much for serious investigative journalism, more for dramatic effect.


----------



## Bollo (5 Mar 2017)

*IF* this story has legs then there's more trouble heading Sky's way...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...gedly-sent-banned-testosterone-patches-doping


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Mar 2017)

Bollo said:


> *IF* this story has legs then there's more trouble heading Sky's way...
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...gedly-sent-banned-testosterone-patches-doping


This is turning into a classic doping scenario. Little bits of evidence coming in one by one, each explained away as an innocent one off error of some sort until in the end there are so many dead fish in the pond that the stink cannot be ignored.


----------



## Flick of the Elbow (5 Mar 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> This is turning into a classic doping scenario. Little bits of evidence coming in one by one, each explained away as an innocent one off error of some sort until in the end there are so many dead fish in the pond that the stink cannot be ignored.


Yes, unfortunately reminiscent of US Postal.


----------



## Crackle (5 Mar 2017)

I didn't realize Freeman had been on the Linda MCartney team, that's chipped a bit more good faith away. Everything else in that article is good. The realization that the TUE system was not robust enough and steps taken to change that, all good.

I don't think it's anything like US Postal, not even vaguely.


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> I don't think it's anything like US Postal, not even vaguely.



I don't either, but it is worth remembering that for a long time most people didn't think that US Postal was like US Postal.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2017)

Is it goodbye to Sirdave time?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-team-sky-riders-consider-asking-brailsford-to-resign/


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> Is it goodbye to Sirdave time?
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-team-sky-riders-consider-asking-brailsford-to-resign/


One wonders. Hard to see how it isn't. One also wonders if it might be the end of Sky too.


----------



## LewisLondon (6 Mar 2017)

HF2300 said:


> Got to say whatever the rights and wrongs I'm a bit dubious about silly doorstepping tactics. I can't help feeling the media these days use doorstepping not so much for serious investigative journalism, more for dramatic effect.



Completely agree with this. What did it hope to solve, other than harassment?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> It's all very strange.
> 
> I always thought Sky would achieve their stated aim when they started - to win the Tour within 5 years.
> 
> I have thought for the past 2 years that their end was on the horizon, this might be the dawn of their ending. But then again, it's Sky.





Crackle said:


> One wonders. Hard to see how it isn't. One also wonders if it might be the end of Sky too.



If I wait long enough it will eventually come true and I can claim to be a sage


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2017)

Geraint Thomas, ready to eat dissenters


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> Geraint Thomas, ready to eat dissenters
> 
> View attachment 341149


That akin to the board giving a football manager a vote of confidence?


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> That akin to the board giving a football manager a vote of confidence?



Or North Koreans protesting how much they love the Glorious Leader?


----------



## mjr (6 Mar 2017)

LewisLondon said:


> Completely agree with this. What did it hope to solve, other than harassment?


It got them a news story, didn't it? Their aim isn't to solve Team Sky's problems...


----------



## Strathlubnaig (6 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> That akin to the board giving a football manager a vote of confidence?


and we all know what happens to football managers


----------



## Strathlubnaig (6 Mar 2017)

Flick of the Elbow said:


> Dog ate my homework.


a big boy did it and ran away


----------



## HF2300 (6 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> It got them a news story, didn't it? Their aim isn't to solve Team Sky's problems...



No, it didn't. It got them a bit of silly time filling drama masquerading as a news story. The story is whether Sky broke the rules or didn't. Doorstepping Wiggins added not one iota of information to the sum of human knowledge on the subject; the only thing we gained was finding out Wiggins doesn't like being doorstepped, which isn't really news.


----------



## Globalti (7 Mar 2017)

A little note for the thread: my cycling buddy knows the BC doctor very well indeed and says that although he's a good Dr, his administration and personal life are an absolute shambles. He believes the whole sorry mess is down to nothing other than simple incompetence in BC and their medical recording.


----------



## Tin Pot (7 Mar 2017)

Globalti said:


> A little note for the thread: my cycling buddy knows the BC doctor very well indeed and says that although he's a good Dr, his administration and personal life are an absolute shambles. He believes the whole sorry mess is down to nothing other than simple incompetence in BC and their medical recording.



Whilst it's true, people are generally shut at everything they do, when there are millions on the line these 'little lapses' are exploited for gain.


----------



## uclown2002 (7 Mar 2017)

A great read:-

https://cyclingtips.com/2017/03/interview-paul-kimmage-team-skys-charade-exposed/


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2017)

uclown2002 said:


> A great read:-
> 
> https://cyclingtips.com/2017/03/interview-paul-kimmage-team-skys-charade-exposed/


Interesting read. Kimmage sees things through a particular prism but even so, some of the things he says ring true though I draw the line at some kind of endemic programme within Sky, I just can't see that.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> I draw the line at some kind of endemic programme within Sky, I just can't see that.


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


>


You are Paul Kimmage aicmfp!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> You are Paul Kimmage aicmfp!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Mar 2017)

Oh look, *Team Sky* have *issued a document* with *bold letters*
https://app.box.com/s/8fiqxj1veckqjom9dhzb2erti45dx77i

And a letter from Sirdave
https://app.box.com/s/giquix65k5aby2sz6ab8y0i0spigl3kv


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> Oh look, *Team Sky* have *issued a document* with *bold letters*
> https://app.box.com/s/8fiqxj1veckqjom9dhzb2erti45dx77i
> 
> And a letter from Sirdave
> https://app.box.com/s/giquix65k5aby2sz6ab8y0i0spigl3kv


Splendid. We can all get back to normal then.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> Oh look, *Team Sky* have *issued a document* with *bold letters*
> https://app.box.com/s/8fiqxj1veckqjom9dhzb2erti45dx77i
> 
> And a letter from Sirdave
> https://app.box.com/s/giquix65k5aby2sz6ab8y0i0spigl3kv


They seem to have bolded the wrong bits in the first document. Clearly "we accept that there are no medical records for this particular rider at this particular race" is a key phrase which should be in bold - if missing three doping tests is a doping offence for a rider, shouldn't losing three days of medical records (and here it was more) be a doping offence for a doctor and result in them serving a ban from cycling? But I guess that's a question for UKADA and WADA more than Team Sky.


----------



## LewisLondon (8 Mar 2017)

HF2300 said:


> No, it didn't. It got them a bit of silly time filling drama masquerading as a news story. The story is whether Sky broke the rules or didn't. Doorstepping Wiggins added not one iota of information to the sum of human knowledge on the subject; the only thing we gained was finding out Wiggins doesn't like being doorstepped, which isn't really news.



As much as i made this point in my post earlier. I wonder if I was a little hasty. Re watching the video and Wiggins appears to be moving fine, despite a broken leg that meant he had to leave The Jump. And no plaster/boot is visible. Could it be the leg break was a lie to keep him out of the way of the public?


----------



## HF2300 (8 Mar 2017)

It could be, but I'm not sure you'll ever know. However, there's a tendency to think of a broken leg as snapped in two, huge plaster cast, etc. but realistically a hairline fracture wouldn't significantly impede him but would be enough to keep someone off something like The Jump, particularly in these litigation concious days and particularly for someone whose legs are so important to his career, (semi) retired though he is.


----------



## rich p (8 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> Interesting read. Kimmage sees things through a particular prism but even so, some of the things he says ring true though I draw the line at some kind of endemic programme within Sky, I just can't see that.


Typical Kimmage scattergun interview.


----------



## Crackle (8 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> Typical Kimmage scattergun interview.


I was trying to find something positive to say but yeah; if he was after me I wouldn't pick the phone up either.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (8 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> They seem to have bolded the wrong bits in the first document.


----------



## FishFright (8 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> Interesting read. Kimmage sees things through a particular prism but even so, some of the things he says ring true though I draw the line at some kind of endemic programme within Sky, I just can't see that.




You do know we are talking about pro cycling ? I have a huge problem seeing a team that is clean


----------



## Crackle (8 Mar 2017)

FishFright said:


> You do know we are talking about pro cycling ? I have a huge problem seeing a team that is clean


You still think doping is endemic in whole teams? And yes I'm fully aware of the history of the sport right up until today where cycling led the way with the bio passport. I'm also fully aware of the situation with other sports, athletics, tennis, football, rugby etc... Most banned athletes from any one sport under UKAD: Rugby.


----------



## FishFright (8 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> You still think doping is endemic in whole teams? And yes I'm fully aware of the history of the sport right up until today where cycling led the way with the bio passport. I'm also fully aware of the situation with other sports, athletics, tennis, football, rugby etc... Most banned athletes from any one sport under UKAD: Rugby.



I understand the wish to see our sport as approaching clean but I can't see it changing while its still possible to get away with it on a regular basis. If you want to see something very frightening check out WADA's gene doping research. 

And as for Brailford's merry men I've called the UK Postal since they first formed the SKY train as their doping was that obvious.


----------



## rich p (8 Mar 2017)

FishFright said:


> And as for Brailford's merry men I've called the UK Postal since they first formed the SKY train as their doping was that obvious


----------



## FishFright (8 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


>



I suppose you believed that super secret beetroot juice nonsense ?


----------



## Crackle (8 Mar 2017)

FishFright said:


> And as for Brailford's merry men I've called the UK Postal since they first formed the SKY train as their doping was that obvious


I'm certainly not naive enough to think it's clean but I wouldn't go as far as that. I fail to see this obvious doping I'm afraid. If any teams are doing that, I think you need to look at some of the Russian teams and perhaps some of the lower league Italian ones but really I think our views might be so far apart on this as to never quite agree.


----------



## rich p (8 Mar 2017)

FishFright said:


> I suppose you believed that super secret beetroot juice nonsense ?


Show me some credible evidence of team doping.


----------



## Crackle (8 Mar 2017)

FishFright said:


> WADA's gene doping research


 On this, I read a few articles some time ago about it. There were still quite a few hurdles to overcome but progress towards diseases like muscular dystrophy were being made and WADA acknowledged that at some point it could enter sports as a form of cheating but it was some way off and would require a bit more than a dodgy doctor in a campervan . More likely was drugs like Aicar and there were reports that packaging had been found at a race. In the meantime most of the cheating that is still coming to light, like this TUE business, is good old fashioned steroids, growth hormone and EPO. Not that I don't share your concerns though.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (8 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> Show me some credible evidence of team doping.



Here's Wiggins a few weeks before his Tour win


----------



## Smokin Joe (8 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> Typical Kimmage scattergun interview.


Kimmage is certainly on a mission and appears quite a bitter man, but he does raise a lot of uncomfortable questions that Sky have failed to answer. One place I would take serious issue with him is his criticism of Froome and other riders for not going public with everything they may or may not know about what is alleged to have gone on. It is worth noting that Kimmage was safely retired before he blew the whistle, he didn't have to live with the people he was speaking out against and wasn't dependent on the sport for his living.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2017)

Kimmage:


----------



## roadrash (8 Mar 2017)

I do find kimmage a bit......


----------



## Crackle (8 Mar 2017)

I've been waiting for inrng's comments on this and it doesn't make good reading.

http://inrng.com/2017/03/sky-tue-epistemology-known-unknowns/#more-30604

Comments are worth reading too.


----------



## HF2300 (9 Mar 2017)

I'm not sure INRNG's comments add anything to the debate or sum total of information. And he's wrong about Newton, or at least misleading.


----------



## psmiffy (9 Mar 2017)

HF2300 said:


> And he's wrong about Newton,



Do you have evidence to support that


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Mar 2017)

The chairperson of the parliamentary committee addresses Sirdave


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Mar 2017)

Sky = US Postal is wide of the mark. Sky are Sky, and times have changed so they won't be using the same methods.

Sky may resemble US postal in having an unprincipled win at all costs approach but that's just a wishy washy comparison that could be applied to many teams.

Sky remind me of the Blair govt in some ways.


----------



## HF2300 (9 Mar 2017)

psmiffy said:


> Do you have evidence to support that



The motion of the planets? That I don't fall off the earth?


----------



## HF2300 (9 Mar 2017)

Can someone clarify something for me? I have seen it said that Sky promised to be 'whiter than white' but I have no recollection of them saying that, only that they would ride clean (in the sense of illegal doping, not TUEs) and would go right up to the line but not cross it. What promises did they actually make, as opposed to what promises someone on the internet says they made?


----------



## ColinJ (9 Mar 2017)

HF2300 said:


> Can someone clarify something for me? I have seen it said that Sky promised to be 'whiter than white' but I have no recollection of them saying that, only that they would ride clean (in the sense of illegal doping, not TUEs) and would go right up to the line but not cross it. *What promises did they actually make, as opposed to what promises someone on the internet says they made?*


Do you want us to reply on the Internet, or shall we write letters to you?


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Mar 2017)

They promised me a rose garden


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2017)

HF2300 said:


> I have seen it said that Sky promised to be 'whiter than white'


Bloody hell - you're asking us to rebut silly comments from the singletrack forum? 



HF2300 said:


> What promises did they actually make, as opposed to what promises someone on the internet says they made?


You may enjoy this now-deleted statement from 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/20121019...sky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html "Team Sky has had a clear position on doping from the very start. We are a clean team and have shown it is possible to win clean. We want a team in which riders are free of the risks of doping and in which fans – new and old - can believe without any doubt or hesitation. There is no place in Team Sky for those with an involvement in doping, whether past or present. This applies to management, support staff and riders. ..."


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> They promised me a rose garden


I beg your pardon?


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Mar 2017)

@Marmion where did you find that video of a self righteous garden gnome?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (11 Mar 2017)

"It's important to make your own choices"

Very true Brad.


----------



## Crackle (11 Mar 2017)




----------



## dragon72 (13 Mar 2017)

So Froome has come out in defense of DB after all.
I'm with Pooley. The whole thing's all a bit fishy.


----------



## mjr (13 Mar 2017)

Pooley on Brailsford and fishes rotting from the heads https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/13/pooley-brailsford-british-cycling-fish-head


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Mar 2017)

dragon72 said:


> So Froome has come out in defense of DB after all.
> I'm with Pooley. The whole thing's all a bit fishy.


Froome is employed by Sky so he can hardly criticize his boss in public, no more than any of us could. Whatever he may or may not think of Brailsford he needs his support while he is riding for him.


----------



## KneesUp (13 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> View attachment 341826
> 
> 
> "It's important to make your own choices"
> ...


Did he have a TUE for the car? Surely someone noticed?


----------



## jowwy (14 Mar 2017)

i wonder if froome applied for another TUE before coming out in support of brailsford............


----------



## mjr (14 Mar 2017)

jowwy said:


> i wonder if froome applied for another TUE before coming out in support of brailsford............


Surely you can't get a TUE for the mindbenders needed for that? 

I've seen it suggested that this expression of support is because Froome is not confident of finding a TdF leadership role in another team for 2019.


----------



## SWSteve (14 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> *Surely you can't get a TUE for the mindbenders needed for that?*
> 
> I've seen it suggested that this expression of support is because Froome is not confident of finding a TdF leadership role in another team for 2019.



I don't think you need a TUE for Tramadol...


----------



## rich p (14 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> I've seen it suggested that this expression of support is because Froome is not confident of finding a TdF leadership role in another team for 2019.


Which farking idiot said that then?


----------



## SWSteve (15 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> Which farking idiot said that then?



I was also surprised about that. Is Evans can keep a grapple on a ride, I would hope Froome can also


----------



## roadrash (15 Mar 2017)

What a load of shyte, froome would get GC leadership status in any current pro team. I would love to know where that little snippet came from


----------



## Dave Davenport (15 Mar 2017)

I'd like to see him go to a French team.


----------



## mjr (15 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> Which farking idiot said that then?


Some people I follow on Twitter. Can't find it now. Maybe they deleted it in shame.


----------



## iLB (16 Mar 2017)

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/842430044790218752

Stand by for another big cycling story on @BBCNews at 6 tonight..


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Mar 2017)

iLB said:


> https://twitter.com/danroan/status/842430044790218752
> 
> Stand by for another big cycling story on @BBCNews at 6 tonight..


Well? 7 minutes past 6 and nothing to report?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Mar 2017)

Here it is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39293763


----------



## iLB (16 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> Well? 7 minutes past 6 and nothing to report?



The headline suggests josh edmundson speaking about taking illegal injections. Waiting for main piece.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Mar 2017)

iLB said:


> The headline suggests josh edmundson speaking about taking illegal injections. Waiting for main piece.


see above


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2017)

The observer doesn't believe DaveB... https://www.theguardian.com/comment...m-sky-doping-david-brailsford-bradley-wiggins


----------



## Bollo (25 Mar 2017)

Wiggo does top drawer Daily Mail Sad Face in this non-story. He just stops short of threatening to get his dad, who is bigger than your dad.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ng-to-be-accused-of-for-a-man-of-my-integrity

(Daily Mail Sad Face Link - contains worst swears
https://dailymailsadface.tumblr.com/ )


----------



## roadrash (28 Mar 2017)

Wiggins says ...marginal gains ...... what marginal gains, and whats this chimp thing.
. http://www.cycling.co.uk/news/wiggins-calls-brailsfords-marginal-gains-mantra-a-load-of/8528692/


----------



## ColinJ (28 Mar 2017)

roadrash said:


> Wiggins says ...marginal gains ...... what marginal gains, and whats this chimp thing.
> . http://www.cycling.co.uk/news/wiggins-calls-brailsfords-marginal-gains-mantra-a-load-of/8528692/


So Wiggins thought the idea of doing lots of small things to make minor gains was a silly idea ... Did he think it was better to to do a few big things to make some major gains then?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Mar 2017)

roadrash said:


> ...whats this chimp thing.


Guess what was really in the jiffy bag...


----------



## Crackle (28 Mar 2017)

roadrash said:


> Wiggins says ...marginal gains ...... what marginal gains, and whats this chimp thing.
> . http://www.cycling.co.uk/news/wiggins-calls-brailsfords-marginal-gains-mantra-a-load-of/8528692/


My respect for him decreases every day.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Mar 2017)

"_I think it is important to be yourself ..._"

"_... to make your own choices._"

DRIVEN BY '_SOMETHING DIFFERENT_' ...?


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2017)

ColinJ said:


> "_I think it is important to be yourself ..._"
> 
> "_... to make your own choices._"
> 
> DRIVEN BY '_SOMETHING DIFFERENT_' ...?


Truly one of the strangest adverts - it's telling us to make our own decision and not buy that car, isn't it?


----------



## rich p (29 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> My respect for him decreases every day.


I tend to agree with him. Haven't most people been calling marginal gains a load of cobblers lately?


----------



## psmiffy (29 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> I tend to agree with him. Haven't most people been calling marginal gains a load of cobblers lately?



I do as well to some extent - Wiggins is a bit of a milkshake himself - as are a lot of athletes who compete at the very elitist levels - marginal gains etc whilst it probably did manifest itself in some physical advantages in the end it is just a slogan - another thing to believe in - Wiggins probably subscribed to it before they even invented the phrase - I think I've heard Wiggins talk about little things he would do - eg training on Christmas day and describe his coping mechanisms which often sound like things that Peters might have come up with - if Peters had been about then - as he says different shakes for different people


----------



## Crackle (29 Mar 2017)

rich p said:


> I tend to agree with him. Haven't most people been calling marginal gains a load of cobblers lately?


It depends what we are talking about. If you're talking about the track then arguably he's talking bollocks as a lot of the small stuff was invented and tested by the Secret Squirrel Club, Boardman goes into this in some depth. On the road, quite possibly a lot of it didn't translate but the point is there are a lot of people working hard on the small stuff and Wiggins should have the magnanimity to acknowledge that.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (29 Mar 2017)

Marginal Gains is bollocks. Apart from the rounder wheels...


----------



## Crackle (29 Mar 2017)

Marmion said:


> Marginal Gains is bollocks. Apart from the rounder wheels...


Next time I see Chris, I'm gonna tell him where you live.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (29 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> Next time I see Chris, I'm gonna tell him where you live.


He'll encounter my marginal boot up his arse


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (29 Mar 2017)

User said:


> If you can catch him.


Simples:
"Come and look at this marginal gain, lying on the ground just in front of me."
<leans over to look>
BOOT!!!


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Mar 2017)

Ross Tucker on how marginal are Marginal Gains 

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/sports-science-marginal-gains-common-sense/


----------



## tfc03 (30 Mar 2017)

I like RT and he is usually spot on. He is largely right here, but he also seems to lack a detailed knowledge specific to cycling, of how a lot of cycling teams were actually run in the 1990s and 2000s. The biographies of David Millar, Wegelius et al show how shambolic it all often was - Millar lobbied for years to actually get a TT specific bike for TTs at Cofidis; Wegelius describes finding out the stage result from the paper the next morning when on the Vuelta etc. Sure there was the odd Mapei, but mostly it seems like chaos. I suspect Sky has 'professionalized' the peleton, at least a [marginal] amount.


----------



## Crackle (30 Mar 2017)

tfc03 said:


> I like RT and he is usually spot on. He is largely right here, but he also seems to lack a detailed knowledge specific to cycling, of how a lot of cycling teams were actually run in the 1990s and 2000s. The biographies of David Millar, Wegelius et al show how shambolic it all often was - Millar lobbied for years to actually get a TT specific bike for TTs at Cofidis; Wegelius describes finding out the stage result from the paper the next morning when on the Vuelta etc. Sure there was the odd Mapei, but mostly it seems like chaos. I suspect Sky has 'professionalized' the peleton, at least a [marginal] amount.


I must admit to not liking him any more. I've read too much of his stiff which is either wrong in it's opinion or shoot stirring or a bit, look at me the clever sports scientist. I think you're right about that piece as well. I don't think his history of the sport is solid enough to back up his view, I mean we still have FDJ only just learning to do a TTT together last year, or getting Pinot to actually do TT training.


----------



## mjr (30 Mar 2017)

Crackle said:


> II think you're right about that piece as well. I don't think his history of the sport is solid enough to back up his view, I mean we still have FDJ only just learning to do a TTT together last year, or getting Pinot to actually do TT training.


I was thinking that too, but hadn't taken the time to look back at some rider stories to see if my memory was correct and see how many of the people named in those stories of bonkers-sounding "traditional" training ideas are still involved in running current top-level teams.

Even some of Dave Brailsford's actions described in Nicole Cooke's book suggest he wasn't a believer in marginal gains initially (refusing to supply a skinsuit for NC in 2008, for example), so I wonder if many people underestimate just what a tight grip bad traditions have had on cycling?


----------



## ColinJ (30 Mar 2017)

I remember reading that huge steaks for breakfast were thought to be the right food for pro cyclists, and that drinking less water was a must!


----------



## smutchin (30 Mar 2017)

tfc03 said:


> I suspect Sky has 'professionalized' the peleton, at least a [marginal] amount.



Yes, I reckon there's definitely some truth in this.

'Marginal gains' is meaningless management jargon that Brailsford brought into cycling, probably picked up on his MBA course. A lot of the really important stuff Sky are doing has been around in cycling for a long time - their methods have a lineage that goes back to Boardman and LeMond - but they can claim some credit for being more organised about it than other teams. And for having the budget to hire the likes of Landa, Rosa and Poels as domestiques who would be riding as main GC contender on other teams.

And a lot of the stuff Sky are doing is pseudoscience nonsense (or bollocks, as LeMond said in that L'Equipe interview) - beetroot juice, hypoallergenic mattresses etc.

All that kind of stuff is just a veneer on the real hard work behind the success - Wiggins didn't win the Tour because of beetroot juice, he won it because he lived like a monk for a year and totally dedicated his life to training and racing.

And because the Tour course suited him. And because Contador was suspended.

And also because he had large doses of PEDs shot into his arse.

Which is fine, because he had a doctor's note.


----------



## smutchin (30 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Even some of Dave Brailsford's actions described in Nicole Cooke's book suggest he wasn't a believer in marginal gains initially (refusing to supply a skinsuit for NC in 2008, for example), so I wonder if many people underestimate just what a tight grip bad traditions have had on cycling?



Brailsford takes a lot of credit for the real groundwork done by Peter Keen and Chris Boardman.

I also suspect that the explanation for not supplying a skinsuit to Nicole Cooke might not be for purely cycling reasons.


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Mar 2017)

Clive Woodward was doing almost identical stuff with the England rugby team in the early 2000s, blathering on about hiring eyebrow specialists and stuff.


----------



## smutchin (30 Mar 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Clive Woodward was doing almost identical stuff with the England rugby team in the early 2000s, blathering on about hiring eyebrow specialists and stuff.



Yes, I've often thought that there are a lot of similarities between Woodward and Brailsford. The main difference is that Woodward actually had some pedigree in his sport as a player.

Glen Hoddle likewise when he was England foopball manager. You could even have forgiven him for Eileen Drewery given the way the team were playing under his guidance. But then he went and spoiled it with his truly bonkers ideas about the disabled.


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2017)

Dr Freeman resigns due to ill health http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/richard-freeman-resigns-from-british-cycling/

Crank up the rumour mill...


----------



## brommers (20 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Clive Woodward was doing almost identical stuff with the England rugby team in the early 2000s, blathering on about hiring eyebrow specialists and stuff.


So that's why the England front row looked so pretty.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> Dr Freeman resigns due to ill health http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/richard-freeman-resigns-from-british-cycling/
> 
> Crank up the rumour mill...


He was always going to be the one "sacrificed", it was just a matter of time


----------



## chriscross1966 (25 Oct 2017)

A big chunk of the marginal gains thing is psychology... It makes your riders feel like you are dedicated to helping them win and a lot of the time it seemed to be putting the wind up the other teams... some of it is probably a good idea, that mobile kitchen Sky lug around these days means they have absolute control not only of what the riders are eating at meal times, but also the conditions in which they were prepared. Some of it is patently bonkers to put alongside PMP right-angle cranks, some of it is probably just to inject some discipline into the team and bond them, lugging around your own bedding, always sanitising after you shake hands with someone, putting your socks on first to reduce the chance of your kecks transferring fungal spores and giving you jock-itch.... that whole "we're different, we're better" thing


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2017)

Marmion said:


> He was always going to be the one "sacrificed", it was just a matter of time


British Cycling reverse the bus back over him: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ling-doctor-jiffy-bag-scandal-richard-freeman


----------



## chriscross1966 (26 Oct 2017)

They've pretty much tipped a load of tarmac over him and are now using him as a bus park...


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2017)

By any standard, that's pretty spectacular scapegoating and highly convenient.


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I for one am delighted that Sky have got rid of the single bad apple in their barrel, and look forward to a future consisting only of sweet smelling fresh and lovely apples. What with Granny Leinders and the Freeman Pippin, Sky have had some dashed bad luck with apples in the past.


Of course. That's why BC hired Julie Harrington from being the FA's group operations director because everyone knows drugs in football are only used by single bad apples and the rarity of positive tests is completely unrelated to the currently relatively small fines for whereabouts failures.


----------



## Winnershsaint (29 Oct 2017)

chriscross1966 said:


> A big chunk of the marginal gains thing is psychology... It makes your riders feel like you are dedicated to helping them win and a lot of the time it seemed to be putting the wind up the other teams... some of it is probably a good idea, that mobile kitchen Sky lug around these days means they have absolute control not only of what the riders are eating at meal times, but also the conditions in which they were prepared. Some of it is patently bonkers to put alongside PMP right-angle cranks, some of it is probably just to inject some discipline into the team and bond them, lugging around your own bedding, always sanitising after you shake hands with someone, putting your socks on first to reduce the chance of your kecks transferring fungal spores and giving you jock-itch.... that whole "we're different, we're better" thing


Widely used in school improvement also.


----------



## Wombat (2 Nov 2017)

resal said:


> They are banned both in and out of competition. The AAF from a tested sample will incur the normal sanction, ie a ban of two years for a first offense. However, the idiots that run the show decided that only "in competition" samples would be tested for this drug and samples taken OOC are not tested for it. Therefore, whilst a TUE should be generated for OOC use, nobody bothers because they know that an AAF will never be generated. This modification to the testing protocol was introduced about 6 years ago. So you have a nice little pact - "we wont look and don't you tell us that you are using it." Therefore, only somebody who believes in Santa would think that although the TUE was only for one injection, that was the limit of the dose applied.


----------



## Wombat (2 Nov 2017)

hi resal, very interested in some of your posts, you seem to have very good knowledge of the 'doping scene' - I was particularly interested in your posts about Angus Frazer . . .


----------



## User169 (15 Nov 2017)

UKAD says no charges will be brought...


----------



## rich p (15 Nov 2017)

All very unsatisfactory and leaves a stain on Brailsford, Wiggins and Sky.


----------



## psmiffy (15 Nov 2017)

rich p said:


> All very unsatisfactory and leaves a stain on Brailsford, Wiggins and Sky.



Supposedly it is so that the GMC can carry on/open an investigation


----------



## User169 (15 Nov 2017)

psmiffy said:


> Supposedly it is so that the GMC can carry on/open an investigation



Although contents of the Jiffy bag will be out of scope of GMC


----------



## dragon72 (15 Nov 2017)

Lack of evidence means that his guilt cannot be proven, so therefore Wiggo has not been proven guilty (as opposed to been proven not-guilty). 

The allegations may have been pure testicles, or they may have been truthful, but now it looks like we'll never know what was in that jiffy bag. Which means that there will forever be the whiff of PEDs about Sir Wiggins. That's the way suspicion works I'm afraid, Bradliño.


----------



## mjr (15 Nov 2017)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/41999310 "This period of time has been a living hell for me and my family, full of innuendo and speculation. At times it has felt nothing less than a malicious witch hunt. To say I am disappointed by some of the comments made by Ukad this morning is an understatement," added Wiggins. "No evidence exists to prove a case against me and in all other circumstances this would be an unqualified finding of innocence."


----------



## mjr (15 Nov 2017)

"We're living in an era of French innuendo and insinuation," Armstrong said. "We're living in an era of doping frenzy in sports. If you jump, run, swim or ride fast, you are questioned." "I'm confident they will find nothing." "We had been put in a position where we couldn't defend ourselves." ooops sorry I was flashing back.


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Nov 2017)

Not proven is hardly an unqualified finding of innocence.


----------



## NickNick (15 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Not proven is hardly an unqualified finding of innocence.



Especially when records have been conveniently disappearing/being stolen... left right and centre.

I also find it funny how he was so quick to throw accusations and innuendo at Lizzie Armitstead when she was cleared (he made statement to the press that no way would anyone miss 3 by accident), yet we're meant to unconditionally believe him despite there being way more red flags than in her case!


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Nov 2017)

NickNick said:


> Especially when records have been conveniently disappearing/being stolen... left right and centre.
> 
> I also find it funny how he was so quick to throw accusations and innuendo at Lizzie Armitstead when she was cleared (he made statement to the press that no way would anyone miss 3 by accident), yet we're meant to unconditionally believe him despite there being way more red flags than in her case!


Yes the lost, missing, stolen records just beggars belief. I can’t believe anyone could attempt to solemnly state all that and keep a straight face.


----------



## Adam4868 (15 Nov 2017)

http://road.cc/content/news/232308-...ry-goes-behind-scenes-british-cyclings-‘medal
Sunday night viewing sorted,didnt fancy im a celebrity anyway.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (15 Nov 2017)

I have seen a response from SirBrad on twitter, classic "old skool" denier stuff.


----------



## Adam4868 (15 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> I have seen a response from SirBrad on twitter, classic "old skool" denier stuff.



View: https://twitter.com/SirWiggo/status/928938719603765248

Don't Diss Brad !


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (15 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> View: https://twitter.com/SirWiggo/status/928938719603765248
> 
> Don't Diss Brad !



He's let himself go more than I have, and I say that as a complete fecking disaster zone


----------



## NickNick (15 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Yes the lost, missing, stolen records just beggars belief. I can’t believe anyone could attempt to solemnly state all that and keep a straight face.



We're somehow meant to believe the same organisation has taken the performance of the whole sport to new levels, leaping ahead of the competition thanks to their data driven attention to detail, marginal gains, detailed tracking and analysis of training, marginal gains...

Can't have it both ways!!!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (15 Nov 2017)

Indeed.

It's all bollocks. 

BC and SKY.


----------



## mjr (16 Nov 2017)

NickNick said:


> We're somehow meant to believe the same organisation has taken the performance of the whole sport to new levels, leaping ahead of the competition thanks to their data driven attention to detail, marginal gains, detailed tracking and analysis of training, marginal gains...
> 
> Can't have it both ways!!!


Yeah but you don't need to keep that stuff as long for it to do its job. Take the output of a few months of monitoring and feed it into the next months training. What's the longest period of time they'd use it? Maybe the duration of Wiggo's Sky contract? I expect that if someone wanted to see the detailed tracking and analysis of Wiggo for the same period, they'll have lost that too, which would at least be consistent.


----------



## Beebo (16 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> He's let himself go more than I have, and I say that as a complete fecking disaster zone


He is bulking up to see if he can get in the british rowing team.
I Would be interested to see what his current weight is compared to someone like James Cracknel.


----------



## Crackle (16 Nov 2017)

Do you think he had that tatoo before he bulked up and it's now a distorted version of the original.


----------



## Beebo (16 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I thought you were kidding, but no. Tis true.


Maybe this should be in the factoids thread?


----------



## rich p (16 Nov 2017)

Beebo said:


> Maybe this should be in the factoids thread?


Is there a deltoid thread?


----------



## hoopdriver (17 Nov 2017)

rich p said:


> Is there a deltoid thread?


Or a haemorrhoid thread...?


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> I have seen a response from SirBrad on twitter, classic "old skool" denier stuff.



Witch hunt and tax-payers money.
Classic, if unoriginal, Bradley.

Meanwhile St Froome, who is on the face of It, far dodgier, seems to be completely avoiding the flying sh1t


----------



## mjr (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Meanwhile St Froome, who is on the face of It, far dodgier, seems to be completely avoiding the flying sh1t[/SIZE]


I think sideburns and tatty beards on the face look far dodgier.


----------



## hoopdriver (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Witch hunt and tax-payers money.
> Classic, if unoriginal, Bradley.
> 
> Meanwhile St Froome, who is on the face of It, far dodgier, seems to be completely avoiding the flying sh1t


Why does Froome seem dodgier than Sir Brad? I don’t see it.


----------



## NickNick (17 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Why does Froome seem dodgier than Sir Brad? I don’t see it.



I suppose it depends on how much you believe Froome's poor performance in the first part of his career was due to the various untreated illness/parasites and that their eventual curing led to him revealing his true potential. If you don't have much confidence in that explanation for his sudden transformation then he definitely looks much more dodgy than Wiggins who had shown promise on the track before moving to the road.


----------



## hoopdriver (17 Nov 2017)

That’s mere supposition. Sir Brad has Jiffy bags, lost laptops, missing records, and TUE’s that are far more inexplicable.


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> That’s mere supposition. Sir Brad has Jiffy bags, lost laptops, missing records, and TUE’s that are far more inexplicable.



I don't think it is mere supposition. A change from no decent results ever to consistent GT podium placing and all within a matter of a few weeks stinks to high heaven.


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

Totally disagree with the suspicions on Froome,until i see different or anything to make me suspicious.I think hes a great rider and a even better "team rider"


----------



## jowwy (17 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> That’s mere supposition. Sir Brad has Jiffy bags, lost laptops, missing records, and TUE’s that are far more inexplicable.


the jiffy bag was labelled for the doctor not wiggo, the laptop was the dr's not wiggo's, the missing files were birtish cyclings NOT wiggo's and the TUE's were legal and above board, that's why its called a TUE


----------



## jowwy (17 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Totally disagree with the suspicions on Froome,until i see different or anything to make me suspicious.I think hes a great rider and a even better "team rider"


but he still had TUE's the same as wiggo...............


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

jowwy said:


> the jiffy bag was labelled for the doctor not wiggo, the laptop was the dr's not wiggo's, the missing files were birtish cyclings NOT wiggo's and the TUE's were legal and above board, that's why its called a TUE


----------



## jowwy (17 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


>


can you prove or state otherwise??


----------



## jowwy (17 Nov 2017)

This thread is just as much a witch hunt as the UKAD one - should be closed down.........


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

jowwy said:


> can you prove or state otherwise??



I think you need to read the UKAD statement very carefully, and then the comments of Damian Collins and the DCMS.

They are utterly damning.

Then speak to a medical specialist about whether large doses of Kenacort for an allergy are anywhere near approaching normal.

Wiggins cheated the TUE system. It' highly likely he cheated in other ways too, given the attempted cover up surrounding the 'package.'

Its uncomfortable, I know. We all wanted a British TdF winner. But did we want one who cheated?


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

jowwy said:


> the jiffy bag was labelled for the doctor not wiggo, the laptop was the dr's not wiggo's, the missing files were birtish cyclings NOT wiggo's and the TUE's were legal and above board, that's why its called a TUE


You sound like Brad's legal team.


----------



## hoopdriver (17 Nov 2017)

As to Froome, on present indications I am happy to believe he's clean. And no, that is not an invitation to debate. Let it be.


----------



## jowwy (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> I think you need to read the UKAD statement very carefully, and then the comments of Damian Collins and the DCMS.
> 
> They are utterly damning.
> 
> ...


wiggins cheated the TUE system....get a grip will you

and if thats the case why aren't you saying the same about froome, who also recieved TUE's


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

Put me down please,it's Friday and I'm bored .......


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Put me down please,it's Friday and I'm bored .......


Go and post something really stupid and I'll do my best...


----------



## FishFright (17 Nov 2017)

The problem with discussing Sir Bradley of Moddum is the world is split into the emotionally invested because British crowd and the if it looks like a Discovery duck etc then he doped to high hell group.
Very few seem neutral on the subject thus leading to tantrums and name calling all round every time his name comes up in this thread.

And below will be I'm neutral posters but hey my point stands


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Go and post something really stupid and I'll do my best...


I believe Brad honestly ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

FishFright said:


> The problem with discussing Sir Bradley of Moddum is the world is split into the emotionally invested because British crowd and the if it looks like a Discovery duck etc then he doped to high hell group.
> Very few seem neutral on the subject thus leading to tantrums and name calling all round every time his name comes up in this thread.
> 
> And below will be I'm neutral posters but hey my point stands


I have no emotional investment or otherwise, other than being pleased when he won but having enough knowledge to know there may be something other than sweetness and mirth involved. His name is likely to come up quite a lot on this thread given that he is one of two riders named in the thread title...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> I believe Brad honestly ?


If you'd left out the ? I might have been able to call you a twat


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> It would be useful if you could point out the damning elements?
> 
> I've only read Wiggins statement so far and whilst we have to suspend the belief that a lot of the worlds fittest people have severe chronic asthma, the failure to prosecute is all we have.



Collins is saying that the UKAD report is absolutely not an exoneration. UKAD are saying that the investigation is over because Sky and BC have not kept any records, therefore they've nothing to go on.

UKAD said they met 'resistance' from Sky/BC whilst trying to investigate.

I think you have to look at the story as a whole. It utterly stinks, and Wiggins attempt to try the 'witch hunt' and 'waste of tax payers money' line is not the response of an innocent man. It tells you that he does not want to be investigated and he' trying to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

There is a very good podcast on the cyclingnews website which really spells it out.


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

jowwy said:


> wiggins cheated the TUE system....get a grip will you
> 
> and if thats the case why aren't you saying the same about froome, who also recieved TUE's



I think Froome cheated too.

Those of us with connections know that it has been an open secret for years that Team Sky were abusing Kenacort. We were absolutely not surprised by the package story.

The ONLY reason you know about Wiggins Tues is because of the Fancy Bears hack.

Prior to that, Wiggins was telling everybody he'd never had an injection (except for holiday vaccinations)

The hack revealed him to be a liar.

I'm sensing that you havent actually followed the story closely, and don't know the details. That is understandable, as it has bern barely reported by the mass media. Try the cyclingnews podcast...its very informative.


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> I think Froome cheated too.
> 
> Those of us with connections know that it has been an open secret for years that Team Sky were abusing Kenacort. We were absolutely not surprised by the package story.
> 
> ...


Except I didn't think Froome hid his use of them early on and refused it in 2015 tour ? I maybe wrong but I've yet to see anything.to make me doubt him.Other than being a fantastic bike rider which is always going to arouse suspicion.


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Except I didn't think Froome hid his use of them early on and refused it in 2015 tour ? I maybe wrong but I've yet to see anything.to make me doubt him.Other than being a fantastic bike rider which is always going to arouse suspicion.



You are correct in that, unlike Wiggins, he didnt try and hide the ones we know about from the FB hack.

However, the circumstances surrounding the one used for Tour de Romandie (iirc) are that he was so very ill with a chest infection that he needed a massive dose of prednisolone. He then went from being incapacitated to winning the race outright, including winning the TT and in the process beating world champion Tony Martin.

That' not bad for somebody who was so ill that he needed a huge dose of steroids 

In itself, whilst not a doping infringement, it looks like a bending of the rules.

Where I just can't accept Froome as being as clean as he says he is, resides in his miraculous transformation in september 2011 from a near nobody in GT terms to a consistent Tour winner or podium finisher.

I can't think of any other rider in the 35 years ive been interested in cycling who had such an utter lack of pedigree. Bilharzia doesn't account for it either, because it would have to account for the lack of results before thr bilharzia too.

I think it is no surprise that Sky will not share any of Froome's pre 2011 Vuelta data.

Gut feeling? He's a bigger cheat than Wiggins. Wiggins cut his losses after one year.


----------



## mjr (17 Nov 2017)

NickNick said:


> I suppose it depends on how much you believe Froome's poor performance in the first part of his career was due to the various untreated illness/parasites and that their eventual curing led to him revealing his true potential.


Presumably his medical records will one day back that up and it's not like Team Sky have ever lost any medic... oh, wait


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> You are correct in that, unlike Wiggins, he didnt try and hide the ones we know about from the FB hack.
> 
> However, the circumstances surrounding the one used for Tour de Romandie (iirc) are that he was so very ill with a chest infection that he needed a massive dose of prednisolone. He then went from being incapacitated to winning the race outright, including winning the TT and in the process beating world champion Tony Martin.
> 
> ...


I tend to disagree with you on the transformation argument.I think he allways had it in him (had the engine) it was just applying it.Look at the figures from when he did the vo2 test,ive not seen or heard him hide or try to hide anything.Was it Vayer or someone who started by saying he had a hidden motor in his bike,yea right.I guess im allways going to be slightly biased as i like him as a rider,i like his awkwardness on a bike ! Until i see different im going to believe that hes the best GC rider of recent times.Unfortunately in the sport of cycling winners are going to arouse suspicion,hes more than proved himself in my eyes,i hope im not wrong !


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

It's strange that he waited until quite late in his career to access this world beating 'engine'

Stranger still that he went from not being able to access It, to being able to access it within the space of a few weeks.

What are you suggesting? That he suddenly started trying?

(apologies if that sounds sarcastic btw )

I do quite enjoy watching him, now that he gives it a bit of wellies downhill, but I' under few illusions about him or his competitors


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

When did he turn professional 21/22 age, then a couple of years later he joined sky and started to show what he could do ? I dont think many people didnt think he could have won the Tour when Wiggins did.To me theres no superhuman victories,he is a great racer.Theres no miracle transformation either.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Theres no miracle transformation either.


There was. Whether that is down to treating his Bilharzia or otherwise...

He was utterly shite when at Barloworld (2008?)


----------



## mjr (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Stranger still that he went from not being able to access It, to being able to access it within the space of a few weeks.


Well, if the bilharzia claim is true, that is treated with a single dose of drugs - how long do you think it takes to work?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> Well, if the bilharzia claim is true, that is treated with a single dose of drugs - how long do you think it takes to work?


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-free-of-parasitic-disease-bilharzia/


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> Well, if the bilharzia claim is true, that is treated with a single dose of drugs - how long do you think it takes to work?



Its irrelevant. How does he account for the lack of results before he contracted bilharzia?

If it was bilharzia holding him back whilst at Sky in 2010, why wasn't he a world beater before he contracted It?


----------



## SheilaH (17 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5045899, member: 43827"]Chris Froome won his first tdf at the age of 28. The average age of winners since 1967, except Armstrong and Froome, is 28. The average age of first time winners over the same period is exactly the same age as Froome was when he won for the first time.

I don't think his age gives any cause for suspicion.[/QUOTE]

Now look at the pre-win palmares of all the 3+ TdF winners and compare with Froome...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Its irrelevant. How does he account for the lack of results before he contracted bilharzia?
> 
> If it was bilharzia holding him back whilst at Sky in 2010, why wasn't he a world beater before he contracted It?


To be fair he was a "TIME TRIAL REVELATION" in the 2006 Commonwealth Games ITT according to headlines at the time. 

Personally? I'm gonna give Froome and Wiggins the benefit of doubt, but would not be shocked if it was all a sham.


----------



## Adam4868 (17 Nov 2017)

Wiggins ill give the benefit of doubt,Froome nah ive got no doubt,im convinced hes clean.To say he was shite early on was maybe a overstatement.I dont.see any reason to doubt him other than his winning.so ill stick with that.


----------



## SheilaH (18 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Well, now they've decided not to take things any further the case file is passed to us, the shouty opinionated internet people, to air our opinions.
> 
> And you know what they say about opinions.



Not quite.

The DCMS has yet to report...


----------



## Doseone (18 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> There is a very good podcast on the cyclingnews website which really spells it out.



Thank you for that - I've given it a listen (with the exception of the last 4 minutes, which I'll listen to a bit later) and it is very good. My own opinion is that Sky have absolutely (ab)used TUE's as one of their methods of "marginal" gains. So, that leaves Sky's reputation pretty much in tatters, but they probably don't care.

Listening to the podcast though, I didn't like Jeremy Whittle. You could almost hear the glee in his voice and it felt to me like he may be settling a personal vendetta here. That's not to diminish what's happened, but Whittle seemed to want this to be on a par with Puerto or Cofidis, and it isn't.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (18 Nov 2017)

Doseone said:


> Thank you for that - I've given it a listen (with the exception of the last 4 minutes, which I'll listen to a bit later) and it is very good. My own opinion is that Sky have absolutely (ab)used TUE's as one of their methods of "marginal" gains. So, that leaves Sky's reputation pretty much in tatters, but they probably don't care.
> 
> Listening to the podcast though, I didn't like Jeremy Whittle. You could almost hear the glee in his voice and it felt to me like he may be settling a personal vendetta here. That's not to diminish what's happened, but Whittle seemed to want this to be on a par with Puerto or Cofidis, and it isn't.


Here's a link highlighting the "tactical use" of TUEs and "recovery":
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...combatting-doping-in-sport/written/69004.html

Edit - and a BBC report from today, with Shane Sutton confirming the above:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692


----------



## Dave Davenport (18 Nov 2017)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692


----------



## Doseone (18 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Here's a link highlighting the "tactical use" of TUEs and "recovery":
> http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...combatting-doping-in-sport/written/69004.html



Thank you. Wow. What a f*****g mess.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (18 Nov 2017)

Dave Davenport said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692


Ha! We must have spotted that at the same time!!


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Nov 2017)

Its bad when David Miller is dissapointed ! Read that earlier,have they done anything illegal ? Its debatable i guess but we probally know more about marginal gains now.


----------



## coldash (18 Nov 2017)

It will be interesting to see how many of the facts can be verified in the whistleblower note. I don’t know and will wait for more info. IMV, I’m sure that TUEs do get used tactically to get a rider back up to 100% by most teams. Using them to get beyond that crosses the line for me. I watched the evidence live and didn’t strike me that Cope was “an unwitting porn” ( sic), although he was clearly desperate to keep his job.

Also interesting to see the whistleblower highlight the link between Fabio Bartolucci and Nicole Cooke. Hmmm


----------



## SheilaH (18 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Millar "A little bit of me died to be honest with you. I thought you guys were different."



Millar knows they weren't different. The ZTP was horsesh1t. Sutton is a well known massive doper.


----------



## roadrash (18 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Its irrelevant. How does he account for the lack of results before he contracted bilharzia?
> 
> If it was bilharzia holding him back whilst at Sky in 2010, why wasn't he a world beater before he contracted It?



he was only diagnosed with it in 2009, who knows how long he had it before it was diagnosed.

as far as wiggins and froome are concerned ,I am prepared to accept that they acted within the rules, but, I think both , and everyone else at sky have pushed tue,s to the absolute limit,but as stated the tue,s were sanctioned, therefore legal, morally however is a different thing. I don't think for one minute sky are the only ones doing it.

and to play devils advocate ... what did you say mr wiggins ..you have terrible hay fever , tough sh!t, its not a good idea to race through france at the height of summer then.....good bye,.... shut the door on your way out,... same goes for everybody.


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Nov 2017)

Unethical, maybe....illegal, don't think so.I do hope I'm not proved wrong.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Unethical, maybe....illegal, don't think so.I do hope I'm not proved wrong.



Illegal if he faked illness.


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Nov 2017)

400bhp said:


> Illegal if he faked illness.


Who faked illness ? Or is this just speculation.


----------



## NickNick (18 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Ha! We must have spotted that at the same time!!




Brailsford really is a nasty piece of work.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Who faked illness ? Or is this just speculation.



We don’t know if he’s done anything because of the farcical situation. My point being that in my view there’s a difference between an athlete having medical intervention from a genuie need and one feigning illness to get the TUE.


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2017)

roadrash said:


> you have terrible hay fever , tough sh!t, its not a good idea to race through france at the height of summer then.....good bye,.... shut the door on your way out,... same goes for everybody.


Could have tried other treatments but I don't think we know whether he did or what and with the medical records gone, it'll never be certain


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2017)

SheilaH said:


> Millar knows they weren't different. The ZTP was horsesh1t. Sutton is a well known massive doper.


Wouldn't a ZTP reduce the risk of having staff who would recognise doping telltale signs?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (19 Nov 2017)

Not sure what I was expecting from the BBC programme, but it didn't deliver much at all.


----------



## Adam4868 (20 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Not sure what I was expecting from the BBC programme, but it didn't deliver much at all.


Didnt get chance to watch it last night as one tv had that "celebrity sh1te" on and other kids had with playstation on.Guess who comes last in my house ! Ill watch tonight but im guessing its a lot of what everybody allready knew.


----------



## Dave Davenport (20 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Didnt get chance to watch it last night as one tv had that "celebrity sh1te" on and other kids had with playstation on.Guess who comes last in my house ! Ill watch tonight but im guessing its a lot of what everybody allready knew.


Pretty much, with added shiftyness by Shane Sutton.


----------



## mjr (20 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Didnt get chance to watch it last night as one tv had that "celebrity sh1te" on and other kids had with playstation on.Guess who comes last in my house ! Ill watch tonight but im guessing its a lot of what everybody allready knew.


I was watching the Gent six day highlights and forgot it. It's repeated 2320 Wed except Northern Ireland.


----------



## SheilaH (20 Nov 2017)

I fell asleep.

Seemed like more of a Sky hagiography than anything else


----------



## Adam4868 (20 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> It did get over Brailsford "marginal gains at any cost" mentality and Suttons brutal methods.


Which if not illegal hasn't half worked !


----------



## ColinJ (20 Nov 2017)

User3094 said:


> It did get over Brailsford "marginal gains at any cost" mentality and Suttons brutal methods.


I thought it was almost funny to see the scary intensity of Shane Sutton saying that he was too small to be scary! I had a teacher like him at school and he scared everybody despite only being about 5' 4" tall. It isn't about size, it's about attitude, charisma and power. I dwarf Sutton but he scared me even on the TV - in real life, I would run a mile from someone like him. Having your whole career dependent on pleasing him would be incredibly stressful.

He might be a lot smaller than (say) Wiggins but you can imagine how intimidated Emma Pooley must have felt when he turned that intensity on her.

I thought the faces of Sutton and Brailsford said even more than their words ...


----------



## Dave Davenport (20 Nov 2017)

ColinJ said:


> I thought it was almost funny to see the scary intensity of Shane Sutton saying that he was too small to be scary! I had a teacher like him at school and he scared everybody despite only being about 5' 4" tall. It isn't about size, it's about attitude, charisma and power. I dwarf Sutton but he scared me even on the TV - in real life, I would run a mile from someone like him. Having your whole career dependent on pleasing him would be incredibly stressful.
> 
> He might be a lot smaller than (say) Wiggins but you can imagine how intimidated Emma Pooley must have felt when he turned that intensity on her.
> 
> I thought the faces of Sutton and Brailsford said even more than their words ...



Yep, the 'how can anyone be scared of me because I'm not very big' was weird. Does he actually think that given his personality and position, people wouldn't be intimidated by him?


----------



## buzzy-beans (20 Nov 2017)

I watched the prog. last night and I have watched and read so many things about these truly exceptional team bosses and coaches in years gone by.

For Christs sake any and all of these sports competitors (no matter what sport) should be in it to bloody well win, if you come second then you have failed.

I was the same in business, in my business anyone I employed knew from day one that they had to win, they had to get orders and if they didn't, they were soon on their way to the unemployment exchange!!

Way back in my school boy days I was very fortunate to have 2 games masters who somehow found those who were willing to push themselves into the grey mist of pain over and over again and in so doing, building up their muscular strength as well as and far more importantly their personal levels of sheer blood and guts will to win almost at any cost.

Personally I can't stand the attitude held by so many people that they have done well to compete................ total, complete and utter bo--ocks, in my most humble of opinions, anyone who doesn't win has lost and that is what is so great by the two brilliant people who were lambasted in last nights programme.


----------



## rich p (21 Nov 2017)

buzzy-beans said:


> I watched the prog. last night and I have watched and read so many things about these truly exceptional team bosses and coaches in years gone by.
> 
> For Christs sake any and all of these sports competitors (no matter what sport) should be in it to bloody well win, if you come second then you have failed.
> 
> ...


Full marks for effort this teem but Fuzzy Beans must learn to talk less in class. 
C minus


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

rich p said:


> Full marks for effort this teem but Fuzzy Beans must learn to talk less in class.
> C minus


Oh I don't know, I reckon he highlights a legitimate point of view widely held by many, and not just in cycling.


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Nov 2017)

I dont think there was anything new or shocking to be seen.Did anybody not think it would be ruthless ? I did notice there was no mention really of Froome,couple of gratuitous shots of him.I havent bothered to look but how many of the other teams/riders were using TUEs ? From this programme i have the same view as before that they went to the line.Morally wrong maybe,illegal no.I hope ! As for Miller (as much as i like him,and i do!) Having your dreams shattered ? I dont think so..


----------



## buzzy-beans (21 Nov 2017)

rich p said:


> Full marks for effort this teem but Fuzzy Beans must learn to talk less in class.
> C minus



You are quite correct, I was useless at school, I learnt next to nothing apart from etiquette and manners, I was expelled from school and then thrown out of college!

From then on I decided I have finished having fun and from that day on I worked all hours god-send with the mind set of never letting the bastards get me down and whatever it takes, I will win and I will not borrow money in doing so.

This is why I so admire people who steadfastly will not be beaten such as Sutton & Brailsford and gaud help anyone who works for them who doesn't tow the line!!


----------



## MrGrumpy (21 Nov 2017)

I watched it last night an catch up , win at all costs was the mantra . Were they successful did they achieve the goals ? I think history tells the story. Certainly the track team were at times invincible ! The dubiety is really around the road team of Sky.


----------



## mjr (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Oh I don't know, I reckon he highlights a legitimate point of view widely held by many, and not just in cycling.


I often think those people are either:
1. Deluding themselves into thinking they're winning, the failed school-like everyone is a winner at something method, like how everything gets a Product of the Year award and they keep making up overlapping categories as long as gullible firms keep paying.
2. Depressed because they're not winning, as there's always someone better, unless you're...
3. Blazed

Dr Steve Peters would have a field day.


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

buzzy-beans said:


> You are quite correct, I was useless at school, I learnt next to nothing apart from etiquette and manners, I was expelled from school and then thrown out of college!
> 
> From then on I decided I have finished having fun and from that day on I worked all hours god-send with the mind set of never letting the bastards get me down and whatever it takes, I will win and I will not borrow money in doing so.
> 
> This is why I so admire people who steadfastly will not be beaten such as Sutton & Brailsford and gaud help anyone who works for them who doesn't tow the line!!


Similar kind of background as myself and apparent attitude to working hours. It may explain the ability to accept the theory of hard work equals reward more readily than others.


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> I often think those people are either:
> 1. Deluding themselves into thinking they're winning, the failed school-like everyone is a winner at something method, like how everything gets a Product of the Year award and they keep making up overlapping categories as long as gullible firms keep paying.
> 2. Depressed because they're not winning, as there's always someone better, unless you're...
> 3. Blazed
> ...


I've probably missed something in this post, but they were hardly deluding themselves they were winning, they went from 14th to lots of golds. It was a measurable success rate as you are ever as likely to find.


----------



## buzzy-beans (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> I've probably missed something in this post, but they were hardly deluding themselves they were winning, they went from 14th to lots of golds. It was a measurable success rate as you are ever as likely to find.



EXACTLY, but there are the whimps in so many parts of education or employment these days who refuse to admit that we all can't be equals....................... and in my opinion, neither should we if we want to continue to produce true GREATS in sport or business!!


----------



## Foghat (21 Nov 2017)

buzzy-beans said:


> EXACTLY, but there are the whimps in so many parts of education or employment these days who refuse to admit that we all can't be equals....................... and in my opinion, neither should we if we want to continue to produce true GREATS in sport or business!!



Wiggins presumably being one of those wimps, who couldn't accept he wouldn't be equal to or as good as better stage race riders unless he got himself pumped full of rocket fuel PEDs, made fraudulent TUE applications, and became a lying cheating bullsh1tting arse that significant numbers of people are rapidly losing respect for.

How are you measuring greatness exactly?


----------



## mjr (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> I've probably missed something in this post, but they were hardly deluding themselves they were winning, they went from 14th to lots of golds. It was a measurable success rate as you are ever as likely to find.


So are the ones who didn't win gold failures then, in that way of thinking?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> So are the ones who didn't win gold failures then, in that way of thinking?


Everyone apart from the shouty people - harden up!


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> So are the ones who didn't win gold failures then, in that way of thinking?


It depends on what their aims and objectives were at the outset.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> It depends on what their aims and objectives were at the outset.


It has nothing to do with the riders aims


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> It has nothing to do with the riders aims


I thought we were discussing the management team.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> I thought we were discussing the management team.


None of them won a medal


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> None of them won a medal


It was their methods that was being questioned and wether it was worth the cost.


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> None of them won a medal


Your a fan, did you enjoy watching them bring home gold?


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Or would the all pals together finishing 14th do?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> So are the ones who didn't win gold failures then, in that way of thinking?





Slick said:


> It depends on what their aims and objectives were at the outset.





Slick said:


> It was their methods that was being questioned and wether it was worth the cost.



Nope, here's the conversation...


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Your a fan, did you enjoy watching them bring home gold?


Seriously? Win at any cost???


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Nope, here's the conversation...


Sorry we've crossed over right enough. I think the aims and objectives thing is still relevant though.


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> Seriously? Win at any cost???


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


>


I'm not sure what this means.


----------



## Slick (21 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> I'm not sure what this means.


I'm laughing.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> I'm laughing.


OK, I don't understand why


----------



## buzzy-beans (22 Nov 2017)

Sir Clive Woodward is another coaching guru whose methodology and practices have reaped enormous levels of success in so many sports and yet he doesn't get vilified for doing so.


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

IMV, the Marginal Gains stuff is just yet another branding of a continuous improvement process - it is neither new nor radical. As for management style, compare and contrast with Ferguson at MU. I thought the BBC program was reasonable but I would have preferred it if they had drawn more of a distinction between the track and the road teams and BC and Sky (which was always a problem). The point that keeps getting missed is that there was a lack of corporate governance. There should have been processes in place to test backups and record keeping. The responsibility for that failure lies with Brailsford. Irrespective of Shane Sutton’s coaching ability, he should never have been put in charge of a operational organisation. I doubt he will ever have the skills for that and I doubt if he receive any management training


----------



## mjr (22 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Btw it was 14 years ago to the day that Woodward's England won the RWC


And has he been "Winning!" anything since?


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

I’m not sure I agree with the gist of this


> They've been shown to have used the TUE system to supply PEDs to one rider


. The reason TUEs exist is to allow teams to supply otherwise banned drugs subject to medical approval. This applies not only to Sky but riders who get TUEs to allow bee stings etc to be treated

How far does the “if one did it, they all did it” go. Are you including Cooke, Hoy, Kenny(s), Pooley etc?

I agree that the TUE system has to be changed and having a couple of independent and trustworthy doctors making the assessment would be a start. How that squares with reviewing the decisions and confidentiality is another matter.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> I’m not sure I agree with the gist of this . The reason TUEs exist is to allow teams to supply otherwise banned drugs subject to medical approval. This applies not only to Sky but *riders who get TUEs to allow bee stings etc to be treated*


Jonathan Vaughters was specifically NOT allowed to have treatment for a sting to his face during the 2001 TdF!


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

ColinJ said:


> Jonathan Vaughters was specifically NOT allowed to have treatment for a sting to his face during the 2001 TdF!


but I’m sure others have been. Using JV as an example of probity on this subject seems a bit bold


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> Are you including Cooke, Hoy, Kenny(s), Pooley etc?


I'm certainly not dismissing it as a possibility.


----------



## mjr (22 Nov 2017)

ColinJ said:


> Jonathan Vaughters was specifically NOT allowed to have treatment for a sting to his face during the 2001 TdF!


Isn't the current system, last updated December 2015 different to how it worked in 2001? I didn't find a good history of the topic.


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> That is indeed the reason, but the question is whether that is how they are used. The intended sequence is: Rider needs medication (for welfare) -> TUE -> rider is treated. The actual sequence can be Rider needs PED -> TUE -> Rider receives PED.
> The "bee sting" case is an example of valid use. Froome's use of oral corticosteroids at Romandie in 2014 is possibly a little bit questionable (I'm no medic so I don't know but I've seen it questioned). Wiggins' use of injectable triamcinolone even more questionable (again I'm no medic, but it has been questioned a lot). Sutton's statement that "if finding the gains might mean getting a TUE that's OK because the rules allow it" is even more questionable because it suggests the sequence of events leading to the TUE can start with the need for performance gain, not rider welfare. So it's a gradual scale.
> 
> That was my gist.
> ...


That all seems very reasonable to me!

It goes way beyond BC and Sky. All teams will probably follow the same practices.
(It is a sport wide problem eg. Football doesn’t seem to have a problem injecting players full of cortisone)

(Sorry for the long quote reply - it’s a bit difficult doing the edit stuff on a mobile)


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> I'm certainly not dismissing it as a possibility.


What’s your betting and who do you think is mostly likely to have been “advantaged”


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Nov 2017)

I think the waiving of patient confidentiality in relation to TUE's is reasonable, if you're not prepared to have them in the open you don't get one.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> What’s your betting and who do you think is mostly likely to have been “advantaged”


I am not speculating just commenting that it is not something I am going to dismiss as possible


----------



## Adam4868 (22 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> That all seems very reasonable to me!
> 
> It goes way beyond BC and Sky. All teams will probably follow the same practices.
> (It is a sport wide problem eg. Football doesn’t seem to have a problem injecting players full of cortisone)
> ...


You sure.....Theres plenty of injections dished out in the premiership.Phil Jones had 6 for Englands match recently.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...-injections-says-angry-mourinho-36341966.html


----------



## mjr (22 Nov 2017)

Dave Davenport said:


> I think the waiving of patient confidentiality in relation to TUE's is reasonable, if you're not prepared to have them in the open you don't get one.


All TUEs or would you be allowed privacy if you then didn't compete for X months? Otherwise, I suspect it would mainly increase the number of cyclists retiring early to get treatment, like Chris Boardman did.


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> You sure.....Theres plenty of injections dished out in the premiership.Phil Jones had 6 for Englands match recently.
> https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...-injections-says-angry-mourinho-36341966.html


Unclear on my part. When I said they don’t have a problem I meant that they do it all they time and nobody in the Press seems inclined to step out of their hospitality suite to question it.


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> All TUEs or would you be allowed privacy if you then didn't compete for X months? Otherwise, I suspect it would mainly increase the number of cyclists retiring early to get treatment, like Chris Boardman did.


Given that it seems very likely that the TUE system has been 'played' and that there is a need to tighten the rules and build some trust, I'd say that in future, if you want a TUE you should have to give up your privacy.


----------



## NickNick (22 Nov 2017)

Dave Davenport said:


> Given that it seems very likely that the TUE system has been 'played' and that there is a need to tighten the rules and build some trust, I'd say that in future, if you want a TUE you should have to give up your privacy.



Agreed, its the only way to stop it descending back into the mess its currently in.


----------



## lyn1 (22 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> I’m not sure I agree with the gist of this . The reason TUEs exist is to allow teams to supply otherwise banned drugs subject to medical approval. This applies not only to Sky but riders who get TUEs to allow bee stings etc to be treated
> 
> How far does the “if one did it, they all did it” go. Are you including Cooke, Hoy, Kenny(s), Pooley etc?
> 
> *I agree that the TUE system has to be changed and having a couple of independent and trustworthy doctors making the assessment would be a start. How that squares with reviewing the decisions and confidentiality is another matter.*



That was done by Brian Cookson

"By 2014, just months into his new administration after being elected as UCI president the previous fall, Cookson decided it was time to close the loophole and insist that all TUE requests go through a three-member review panel.

a favored asthma treatment, was taken off the banned list in 2010. The number of TUEs dropped from 97 in 2010 to 30 in 2013.

By 2015, only 15 TUEs were issued during the entire racing season. Cookson also insisted the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation, founded in 2008 to run anti-doping controls, is more independent than ever, and operates as an stand-alone operation rather than under the UCI’s legal department"

Source Velonews.


----------



## coldash (22 Nov 2017)

lyn1 said:


> That was done by Brian Cookson
> 
> "By 2014, just months into his new administration after being elected as UCI president the previous fall, Cookson decided it was time to close the loophole and insist that all TUE requests go through a three-member review panel.
> 
> ...


Fair point but there is always a “who guards the guards” aspect that may drive a demand for full disclosure


----------



## Siclo (23 Nov 2017)

lyn1 said:


> That was done by Brian Cookson
> 
> "<snip>
> 
> ...



Lies, damn lies and.....

It's clearly absolute garbage since that number would not even cover the novo nordisk team, every member of which needs a genuine TUE.

In fact it I believe it refers to the number of TUE's issued by the UCI, it does not cover TUE's that are issued by national governing bodies.


----------



## lyn1 (23 Nov 2017)

Siclo said:


> Lies, damn lies and.....
> 
> It's clearly absolute garbage since that number would not even cover the novo nordisk team, every member of which needs a genuine TUE.
> 
> *In fact it I believe it refers to the number of TUE's issued by the UCI, it does not cover TUE's that are issued by national governing bodies.*



That's correct, although riders who are in the Registered Testing Programme (RTP) have to apply direct to the UCI via ADAMS, so would be the ones in the UCI figures. This would include the riders/teams that most of the discussions on this section of the forum focus on ie World Tour and Pro Conti level men. (it also includes other groups). Not sure how NN team works as presumably they would need a permanent TUE, rather than one for an isolated or occasional issue.
The National Feds are supposed to deal with applications from "lower level" riders who are not on the RTP at the time they apply, so those riders would rarely be the focus of threads on this forum.


----------



## Siclo (23 Nov 2017)

lyn1 said:


> That's correct, although riders who are in the Registered Testing Programme (RTP) have to apply direct to the UCI via ADAMS, so would be the ones in the UCI figures. This would include the riders/teams that most of the discussions on this section of the forum focus on ie World Tour and Pro Conti level men. (it also includes other groups). *Not sure how NN team works as presumably they would need a permanent TUE*, rather than one for an isolated or occasional issue.
> The National Feds are supposed to deal with applications from "lower level" riders who are not on the RTP at the time they apply, so those riders would rarely be the focus of threads on this forum.



Which leads to the obvious question of what is this mechanism? Who else is using it and what for? If scuttlebutt is to be believed there are likely to be lot of permanent TUEs required for thyroid meds if and when WADA get around to banning them.


----------



## mjr (23 Nov 2017)

lyn1 said:


> This would include the riders/teams that most of the discussions on this section of the forum focus on ie World Tour and Pro Conti level men. (it also includes other groups). Not sure how NN team works as presumably they would need a permanent TUE, rather than one for an isolated or occasional issue.


https://cyclespeak.com/2017/04/19/team-novo-nordisk-race-ready/ says "all the riders on Team Novo Nordisk require a long-term Therapeutic Use Exemption" so I guess most would only show up in the UCI issuing figure in their first year of riding at TNN's Pro Conti level or higher.

Does anyone know how insulin can be used as a PED (it's anabolic but I'm not great at understanding that type of drug) and whether that's actually possible to do without causing serious problems for an athlete with diabetes? Most diabetics I've seen seem to have to be fairly diligent to keep their levels within a broad range, but they're using manual pin-prick testers and pens, rather than the pumps some athletes have.


----------



## Siclo (23 Nov 2017)

Two ways to use as PED, in combination with steroids to help prevent the new muscle mass being broken down, or use in combination with glucose to enter a hyperinsulinaemic state, essentially massively loading muscles with glycogen. Extremely dangerous in non-diabetics, no idea on the effects on diabetics but I would imagine it's even more hazardous.


----------



## mjr (24 Nov 2017)

Slick said:


> Or would the all pals together finishing 14th do?


IMO yes, as long as they did it entertainingly instead of doing not much and then quitting, as the senior men seem to at several world championships.

Also, is it necessary to be nasty to win? At least one interviewee on Sunday's doc didn't think so: "People think that this is what it takes to win, that you've got to have this sort of brutal atmosphere to be able to win, and it's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." -- six-time Paralympic gold medallist Darren Kenny.


----------



## Slick (24 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> IMO yes, as long as they did it entertainingly instead of doing not much and then quitting, as the senior men seem to at several world championships.
> 
> Also, is it necessary to be nasty to win? At least one interviewee on Sunday's doc didn't think so: "People think that this is what it takes to win, that you've got to have this sort of brutal atmosphere to be able to win, and it's just the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." -- six-time Paralympic gold medallist Darren Kenny.


Fair enough, different opinions like that make the world go round. I have thought about it over the past couple of days, and I haven't changed my mind, I still reckon nice guys finish second or even 14th.


----------



## resal (24 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> ............................How far does the “if one did it, they all did it” go. Are you including Cooke, Hoy, Kenny(s), Pooley etc?...............



Hoy was quick to react and support Sutton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/04/28/shane-sutton-receives-support-from-chris-hoy/

"Laura Trott supported Shane Sutton though refused to comment on the allegations"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-with-shane-suttons-resignation-a7005661.html



Dogtrousers said:


> Although in the case of Cooke you get the impression that if BC had discovered indetectable go faster juice they'd have poured it down the drain rather than give it to her, given their relationship with her.



Cooke knew Sutton from Welsh Cycling in the 1990's.

The whole Varnish story was dead and buried, it was weeks old and Sutton had put out his counter _"she's a sore loser, as well, as not being any good"_ in the cycling friendly press.

Then the two stories below kicked in on the same day and suddenly holy hell broke loose. This was because the story suddenly was no longer a "cycling story" to be covered by the cosy group of journalists, like Fotheringham and Moore who hung around the doors of the Sky bus pleading for interviews, but now it was mainstream and a different set of journalists took an interst in the story; journalists who did not think the sun shon out of the backsides of Braislford, Sutton and the gang but could see things without bias.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/25/nicole-cooke-cycling-sexism-jess-varnish-shane-sutton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...t--there-is-sexism-at-the-top-of-british-cyc/

I will finish with a quote from Sir Dave Brailsford, which I fully agree with

“If you’re a cheat, you’re a cheat, you’re not half a cheat. You wouldn’t say, ‘I’ll cheat here but I’m not going to cheat over there; I’ll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday’.'”


----------



## tug benson (25 Nov 2017)

Marmion said:


> He'll encounter my marginal boot up his arse


----------



## cyberknight (26 Nov 2017)

coldash said:


> That all seems very reasonable to me!
> 
> It goes way beyond BC and Sky. All teams will probably follow the same practices.
> (It is a sport wide problem eg. Football doesn’t seem to have a problem injecting players full of cortisone)
> ...


_ have said to people at work who ask about sky pretty much the same , sky and pretty much every team are pushing the legal envelope as far as they are allowed , its just peoples perception of riding clean means they think the riders are still just using bread and water to get around .
Do i defend it , no but im not blind to the reality that is professional sport where sponsors and competitors need results so every edge is sought to be at the top of the game.
Interesting point about kaizen , its like my workplace where everything is analyzed to gain a second here or there in production, it was like being at work watching it ._


----------



## resal (30 Nov 2017)

resal said:


> Hoy was quick to react and support Sutton
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/04/28/shane-sutton-receives-support-from-chris-hoy/
> 
> "Laura Trott supported Shane Sutton though refused to comment on the allegations"
> ...



And of course, apart from the riders there was the strongest support from:

Boardman "Shane Sutton forced out of British Cycling by "lynch mob" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...t-of-british-cycling-lynch-mob-chris-boardman

Cookson " I have a great respect for him. ........... Shane is a man whom I have a great amount of respect for". "Perhaps a number of people didn't find his approach agreeable, but many people did, and the proof of the pudding is in the number of medals he won".
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/01/19/cycling-boss-cookson-praises-shane-sutton

And then the Times stated that "The Times understands that senior figures in the women’s track team have offered their support to Shane" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/support-for-sutton-over-sexism-claim-k5gbktts7

One presumes that these "senior figures" are the ones Squadron Leader and dentist Wendy Houvenaghel described as "juvenile" . But I suppose they gain the sobriquet "senior" because Shane picked them for the TP squad over the foursome that went the quickest - the one with Wendy Houvenaghel in http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/19147279 . Question - do you cross the National Coach or do you just suck it up ?

I suppose Shane knew his back was covered with an awesome pr and spin machine - just look at the way the cycling journos filled their stories with the pap from Manchester to trash Houvenaghel, - so what the hell - he could do nearly what he wanted.

Well I suppose for that we need to look at who was watching him. How "on top of their game" were Drake, Gilbert and that fool Howden when they appeared in front of the nation. That select committee meeting with Howden and Gilbert doing a Laurel and Hardy impersonation was outstanding. And before that Cookson whose "golden touch" made him think he was home and dry in the recent UCI election., before he lost by a landslide.


----------



## hoopdriver (12 Dec 2017)

Unproven (yet with _heavy, heavy_ suspicion) is hardly a finding of innocence or a ringing endorsement of the man's character

In a strictly legal sense Al Capone was an otherwise upright citizen who neglected to pay his taxes, nothing more.


----------



## User482 (13 Dec 2017)

Abnormal drugs test result for Froome:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/13/chris-froome-team-sky-reputation-abnormal-drug-test


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

Doesn’t look good. I’ll be interested to hear more details. I sense there is more to this, and maybe not quite so bad for Froome.


----------



## Tin Pot (13 Dec 2017)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916

Froome! No!


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

Hope not,I had a lot of faith in him !


----------



## 400bhp (13 Dec 2017)

Procedural I think.


----------



## Bollo (13 Dec 2017)

400bhp said:


> Procedural I think.


Twice the allowed limit? I think that’s going to take some expensive lawyering to be deemed ‘procedural’.


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-christopher-froome/


----------



## Dave Davenport (13 Dec 2017)

Oh FFS!


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Strange one this. What probably has happened is Froome really struggled with his asthma and has had far too many puffs on his inhaler presumably so he could compete at a normal level... BUT:

I suppose it could be argued that he took loads of inhaler to gain an advantage on that particular stage but I don't know enough about the drug in question to even know if sucking on an inhaler on a stage would give you an advantage towards the end of it.

Rules is rules and there was a limit and he broke it. We'll wait and see if he's sanctioned. I'd guess he won't. Froome has plenty of funds for scientists and lawyers to argue his case.

But yet again people not familiar with cycling / anti-doping will now consider Froome a serial doper and no better than Armstrong and all of this has given the Anti-Sky / Tin Foil Hat brigade a load more fuel. Sigh.


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Oh, I didn't even know I was the OP on this thread haha


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

Has SKY got any credibility left?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

46 pages about bradley wiggins NOT failing a drug test 

I wonder how many more pages it will reach now that froome HAS failed a drug test............

ready steady go...................


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> 46 pages about bradley wiggins NOT failing a drug test


Surely Wiggins did fail some tests but had a TUE so they didn't count?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Surely Wiggins did fail some tests but had a TUE so they didn't count?


nope - he never failed a drugs test in his career


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> nope - he never failed a drugs test in his career


You say potato, no one says pot-ar-toe. When failure is unacceptable, redefine failure, eh?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> nope - he never failed a drugs test in his career


This line is a familiar one


----------



## rich p (13 Dec 2017)

I bet Wiggins is having a crafty snigger at Froome's predicament though.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Don't pretend you aren't secretly proud of being the OP of a zillion page thread.


im NOT the original OP of this thread

@T.M.H.N.E.T show me any article were it states wiggins has failed a drug test and @mjr can you also do the same please????


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> im NOT the original OP of this thread
> 
> @T.M.H.N.E.T show me any article were it states wiggins has failed a drug test and @mjr can you also do the same please????


I never said he did, I said the line was a familiar one. Please read before engaging your keyboard


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> nope - he never failed a drugs test in his career



But he is a liar. I guess you accept that?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> But he is a liar. I guess you accept that?


find me a proffesional athlete in any sport thats never told a white lie in the past??


----------



## User482 (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> At the very worst Wiggins abused the TUE system and Froomes abused a non TUE 'drug'.
> 
> Complete non story IMO


My understanding is that unless he can prove a reason for the finding, Froome will be banned and stripped of his Vuelta title.

That doesn't sound like a non-story.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> At the very worst Wiggins abused the TUE system and Froomes abused a non TUE 'drug'.
> 
> Complete non story IMO


at worst Bradley performed within the guidelines set out by the UCI for the TUE system...............at the worst FROOME toked on his puffer 30 times more than is allowed within the legal use of the permitted drug, therefore FAILING a drugs test. other riders have been suspended and banned for failing a drugs test using the same drug as froomey........


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Ooops sorry. Getting Joffey and Jowwy mixed up.



Understandable, we have similar names and beards


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Dec 2017)

Oh noes


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> But he is a liar. I guess you accept that?



What was the exact lie that Wiggins told?


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

Joffey said:


> What was the exact lie that Wiggins told?



"No needles" Why did he feel the need to lie about that?


----------



## Milkfloat (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Or failing that, chucking another doctor under the bus.



This is my prediction - they will be running out of doctors soon. I am not sure that would be enough to save him though.


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

User482 said:


> My understanding is that unless he can prove a reason for the finding, Froome will be banned and stripped of his Vuelta title.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a non-story.


My money's on him ducking a ban for some half-baked pseudo-medical reason, or maybe getting a ludicrously short ban. But losing his Vuelta title for sure


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

froomeys defence - "i was never over the legal limit"

Anti doping says " drug test shows he's got double the dose allowable in his system"

Froomeys says " i never took too much"

Anti doping says " prove the drugs test wrong"

Froomey " i cant has both samples tested, prove i'm over the allowable limit"

anti doping says " case closed, 12 Month ban, stripped of vuelta and be for ever known as a drugs cheat"

marmion and the CC keyboard warriors will still blame wiggins


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> froomeys defence - "i was never over the legal limit"
> 
> Anti doping says " drug test shows he's got double the dose allowable in his system"
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure your crystal ball is as clear as you think it is. I doubt very much that Froome deliberately cheated and I doubt very much he'll 'be forever known as a drugs cheat'. On the other hand, if I were him I would absolutely hate to have Dave Brailsford speaking up in my defence or have any of the Sky baggage hanging around my neck. He is in a sticky spot, no mistake. Had he a less sanctimonious team, better still one that was clearly perceived to be clean, he would have a far better chance of explaining what I suspect is some kind of an innocent screw up.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I'm not so sure your crystal ball is as clear as you think it is. I doubt very much that Froome deliberately cheated and I doubt very much he'll 'be forever known as a drugs cheat'. On the other hand, if I were him I would absolutely hate to have Dave Brailsford speaking up in my defence or have any of the Sky baggage hanging around my neck.


valverde, contador et all would beg to differ about your claim that he won't be forever known as a drugs cheat


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> valverde, contador et all would beg to differ about your claim that he won't be forever known as a drugs cheat


Wait to see how this plays out


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Wait to see how this plays out


you mean like the rest of CC did with the wiggins case..................and are still calling him allsorts


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Dec 2017)

Previous bans for riders with less in their samples have set the precedent, 2000 is like 20 inhaler puffs, so he would likely be taking it as a liquid or pill dose, otherwise youtube would be full of shots of Froome puffing away up the Angliru


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

im always of the opinion that some one is innocent until proven guilty and in the current case of chris froome the FAILED drugs test proves he's guilty


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Did I hear that right?
> View attachment 387092


can i put a 1000 likes on that please


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> im always of the opinion that some one is innocent until proven guilty and in the current case of chris froome the FAILED drugs test proves he's guilty


Of what?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Of what?


is your head in the clouds toking on the same bong as froomey...................hes FAILED a drugs test


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> The one that grated with me was that he'd not had injections. (Except for intramuscular injections, and they don't count). Edit @DP beat me to it.



Ah, I remember that now - I thought we were talking Jiffygate


----------



## Siclo (13 Dec 2017)

If the UCI is remotely consistent they've got to ban him as per Petacchi and Ulissi. Sky are obviously going to try and fudge with the 'prove a reason for the finding' defence but given that he's admitted to upping his dosage and Ulissi's controlled excretion tests that showed a non-linear response to increased dosage was not a accepted as a defence, I don't think Sky and Brailsford's usual spin is going to wash.


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Interestingly the NHS states that high does of Salbutamol can cause muscle weakness, cramps, constriction of airways, irregular heartbeat and possible heart attack. Hmmm give me some of that lovely Salbutamol so I can fly up the mountains, it sounds like effective stuff!!!!

This isn't a straight case of 'Froome too all that Salbutamol to go up the hills quicker' - it is far more complicated than that and we need to allow investigation to conclude before throwing him on the fire.

My first thought was this is a massive dosage cock up and I'll state for the record that that's what I think the UCI will find. Then he'll get banned and a career forever tainted by taking a substance that offered no real 'doping' advantage that the majority will jump on to accuse him of doping his entire life.

Our beautiful sport can be anything but at times.


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> is your head in the clouds toking on the same bong as froomey...................hes FAILED a drugs test


Your lofty statement about a belief in the assumption of innocence seems a little hollow. Of precisely what is he 'guilty'? Guilt implies a knowing or deliberate action and there is no evidence of that, at least not that I am aware of. He has some explaining to do about the elevated levels of a given drug - levels that exceed the mandated tolerances - but whether those raised levels are the result of deliberate cheating, an innocent screw-up, or some odd metabolical issue is simply unknown at present. And someone who truly believes in the assumption of innocence until proven guilty would accept that.


----------



## TheJDog (13 Dec 2017)

His previous tests will show normal levels of salbutamol derivatives, below 1000 (unless there have been previous adverse tests that we don't know about). I've no idea (and I bet SKY don't yet, either) how they will argue that this result of double the limit is perfectly possible under legal dosing.

Year's ban, lose the Vuelta. He's lucky they can't take the TDF title, too, IMO.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Your lofty statement about a belief in the assumption of innocence seems a little hollow. Of precisely what is he 'guilty'? Guilt implies a knowing or deliberate action and there is no evidence of that, at least not that I am aware of. He has some explaining to do about the elevated levels of a given drug - levels that exceed the mandated tolerances - but whether those raised levels are the result of deliberate cheating, an innocent screw-up, or some odd metabolical issue is simply unknown at present. And someone who truly believes in the assumption of innocence until proven guilty would accept that.


Best you give brailsford a ring.....seems like your a better spin doctor than piers morgan

Whats he guilty of kind sir is FAILING a drugs test. How he failed it and the reasons for failing it HE needs to prove.......the rest is upto the UCI on whether is reasoning disproves his guilt in drug failure. In past cases pettachi and ullisi was banned for failing tests with usage of the same drug


----------



## Milkfloat (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm surprised no one's mentioned the biggest and most importantest thing in all of sport ...
> 
> Will this harm his chances in the BBC SPOTY?



He didn't have a chance anyway.


----------



## Siclo (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Of precisely what is he 'guilty'?



He's guilty of returning an adverse analytical finding. 

Innocent screw up - that's just mitigation, ask Simon Yates

Metabolic issue - UCI told Ulissi it's not even mitigation

Whatever comes out of the politicking he'll always have an asterisk now.


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

At least Chris is calm.....

View: https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/940892178829729792


----------



## Bollo (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> As I say, worst case. I choose not to beleive it.


I choose to say what you believe is irrelevant. If Froome's only defence is "Smeggers says it's balls" then he's fecked.


----------



## Bollo (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> As equally futile as speculating then.


What speculation? Froome has failed a drugs test.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

Bollo said:


> What speculation? Froome has failed a drugs test.


smeggers doesnt think he failed the test, even though he failed both the A and B sample.............and froome himself has admitted to upping his dosage


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Dont be silly, I said he hasn't taken a banned drug or even abused a TUE, he's overdosed* on an allowed drug..... the outcome we will wait and see.
> 
> * Even that's speculation.


how can the overdose be classed as speculation????


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> To answer would be to speculate and Im not playing that game


2 questions - 

1 . did chris froome fail his A and B Sample drugs test?
2. Did he fail it for being overdosed by twice the amount on Salbutamol?

if the answer to the both is YES then there's NO speculation


----------



## Bollo (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> ... and we'll await the outcome


As @jowwy has said, he's failed a test. Overdose or banned substance, the test has been failed. Most people on here haven't speculated what'll happen next, and even if they have ...... Froome has failed a test.

He may have a perfectly reasonable and fully documented reason for failing the test and that may be accepted and his career can carry on. Even so, the test doesn't become 'unfailed'. 

The take-away bullet point from this .... Froome failed the test.


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Soooo. Froome was informed of the adverse finding on 20 Sept. UCI make a statement on 13 Dec.
> 
> What has governed the timing of these? And when will there be a final hearing?
> 
> I'm just worried on @Shaun 's behalf in case he needs to reserve some extra storage for this thread. Capacity planning and all that.



I think the UCI's hand has been forced since the Guardian and Le Monde somehow got wind of the adverse finding.


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Dec 2017)

I think it is about time TUE's were banned. If your body isn't up to competing as a professional without taking otherwise banned substances then tough - you'll just have to do as everyone else does and find another career.


----------



## Bollo (13 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5077797, member: 9609"]seems to be a lot of asthma sufferers amongst top cyclists, presumably it is just a coincidence that the medication is performance enhancing?[/QUOTE]
I knew I'd read something about that in the last couple of years...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5077797, member: 9609"]seems to be a lot of asthma sufferers amongst top cyclists, presumably it is just a coincidence that the medication is performance enhancing?[/QUOTE]

Its an odd one isn't it! Presumably if you have asthma so bad you are needing special injections and/or ultra high doses of medication, this would have been a bit of a handicap at the start of their career and would reduce chances of making it to pro level. Not saying you wouldn't expect any pro cyclists with Asthma, but you sure wouldn't expect such a high concentration at the most elite level.


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I think it is about time TUE's were banned. If your body isn't up to competing as a professional without taking otherwise banned substances then tough - you'll just have to do as everyone else does and find another career.



I think it would be a great shame for the Novo team, for example.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> im NOT the original OP of this thread
> 
> @T.M.H.N.E.T show me any article were it states wiggins has failed a drug test and @mjr can you also do the same please????


If he wasn't failing tests, why did he have exemption certificates to present to testers?

Also, do you not regard whereabouts fails as fails? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/bradley-wiggins-failed-whereabouts-test-rio-olympics


----------



## smutchin (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> marmion and the CC keyboard warriors will still blame wiggins



You're the one who brought up Wiggins in response to a story about Froome, and the only one who keeps mentioning Wiggins. Give it a rest. It's boring.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> 1. Do you know the doctor willfully advised Froome to up his dose knowing he would fail a test?
> 2. Do you know Froomes body acted normally to an increased dose of Salbutamol?
> 3. Does the same dose of Salbutamol affect all people in the same way,?
> 3. Do you know of any additional detail not provided to us as yet as a) medical privacy and b) ongoing legalities?
> ...


your questions are not valid as nobody knows those answers and nobody is making those judgements. but what we do know uncategorically is that froome failed his drugs test


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

smutchin said:


> You're the one who brought up Wiggins in response to a story about Froome, and the only one who keeps mentioning Wiggins. Give it a rest. It's boring.


the same as all your posts about wiggins was boring, but you still kept making them..................another anti wiggo warrior whos had egg thrown in his face


----------



## derrick (13 Dec 2017)

As said before, if you cannot perform without drugs find something else to do, My wife has sport induced asthma, she is using an inhaler and her performance on a bike has got so much better, i don't have a problem with that, as it means we do not have to keep stopping for her to keep up, Plus she is not a professional sports person, but no doubt some of her Strava followers would not be happy.


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> 1. Do you know the doctor willfully advised Froome to up his dose knowing he would fail a test?
> 2. Do you know Froomes body acted normally to an increased dose of Salbutamol?
> 3. Does the same dose of Salbutamol affect all people in the same way,?
> 3. Do you know of any additional detail not provided to us as yet as a) medical privacy and b) ongoing legalities?
> ...



Yep. Pretty sure you will.


----------



## smutchin (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> 2. Do you know Froomes body acted normally to an increased dose of Salbutamol?
> 3. Does the same dose of Salbutamol affect all people in the same way,?



If Froome chooses to go down that route in his defence against the AAF, he will have to undergo controlled tests to show that his body doesn't metabolise salbutamol in the normal way. 

All I can say to him is good luck with that.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> If he wasn't failing tests, why did he have exemption certificates to present to testers?
> 
> Also, do you not regard whereabouts fails as fails? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/bradley-wiggins-failed-whereabouts-test-rio-olympics


he had an execption certificate so that he DIDNT fail a test, as the testers would already know whats in his system.....also it was a whereabouts test he failed not a drugs test.........keep up lad


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> He's guilty of returning an adverse analytical finding.
> 
> Innocent screw up - that's just mitigation, ask Simon Yates
> 
> ...


He returned an adverse finding. Guilt (of anything) is yet to be established. I have had a long career in journalism, both editing and writing, and it would do my head in to have to deal with a reporter who was as loose with words and meanings are you are.


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

Smokin Joe said:


> I think it is about time TUE's were banned. If your body isn't up to competing as a professional without taking otherwise banned substances then tough - you'll just have to do as everyone else does and find another career.



Yeah, you have ADHD - sorry mate, despite being able to ride a bike really fast @SmokinJoe decided TUE's are banned so you can just sit at home...

See other conditions such as:

Transgender Athletes
Renal Transplantation
Sleep Disorders 
Diabetes
Plus another 100+ general conditions that you get tablets for.

At this rate we can get rid of 50% of all sports people in the country!!


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> If he wasn't failing tests, why did he have exemption certificates to present to testers?
> 
> Also, do you not regard whereabouts fails as fails? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/bradley-wiggins-failed-whereabouts-test-rio-olympics



I didn't realise he'd also failed a whereabouts, he was so quick to denounce lizzie armitstead and yet expects everyone to give him the benefit of the doubt...


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

NickNick said:


> I didn't realise he'd also failed a whereabouts, he was so quick to denounce lizzie armitstead and yet expects everyone to give him the benefit of the doubt...


lizzie failed 3 in a row.........thats why he denounced her, failing one by mistake fine.......failing 3 in a row, come on


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

Joffey said:


> Yeah, you have ADHD - sorry mate, despite being able to ride a bike really fast @SmokinJoe decided TUE's are banned so you can just sit at home...
> 
> See other conditions such as:
> 
> ...



But most of those tablets aren't performance enhancing in any meaningful way, corticosteroids on the other hand...


----------



## smutchin (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> the same as all your posts about wiggins was boring, but you still kept making them..................another anti wiggo warrior whos had egg thrown in his face



Grow up.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> he had an execption certificate so that he DIDNT fail a test, as the testers would already know whats in his system.....also it was a whereabouts test he failed not a drugs test.........keep up lad


What's a whereabouts test to you if it's not a drugs test?

I liked Wiggins, he's still the startup screen on one of my computers, I don't think he deliberately cheated, but I think he was badly advised (by whom, I'm unsure... team sky management or medics seem most likely), pushed the limits without incurring a ban and I'm undecided about the jiffy bag. The case against him seems unproven rather than disproved, so we have to consider him innocent of doping, but it seems clear he failed some drug tests on whereabouts (bizarre given his comments on Armitstead) and explained others only by TUE.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

smutchin said:


> Grow up.


what a grown up answer that is.............


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> lizzie failed 3 in a row.........thats why he denounced her, failing one by mistake fine.......failing 3 in a row, come on



He could have just kept his mouth shut, which seeing as he expects everyone to give him the benefit of the doubt, is the least he could have done. He comes as an arrogant piece of work and that's before even getting onto his so called charity that just seemed to help his family and mates.

tbf to Lizzie the first one wasn't valid as they hadn't tried hard enough to find her and the one missed when her FIL was hospitalised is also understandable imo. I'm much more willing to give that the benefit of the doubt than conveniently timed shots of corticosteroids...


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> What's a whereabouts test to you if it's not a drugs test?
> 
> I liked Wiggins, he's still the startup screen on one of my computers, I don't think he deliberately cheated, but I think he was badly advised (by whom, I'm unsure... team sky management or medics seem most likely), pushed the limits without incurring a ban and I'm undecided about the jiffy bag. The case against him seems unproven rather than disproved, so we have to consider him innocent of doping, but it seems clear he failed some drug tests on whereabouts (bizarre given his comments on Armitstead) and explained others only by TUE.


However, a report in the Daily Mail on Fridayhas now alleged that the 36-year-old, who is set to retire after next month’s Six Days of Ghent race, provided insufficient information about where he would be after returning from the Tour of California. According to the report, Wiggins blamed the time difference and the fact it was an overnight flight but the incident was still marked down as a missed test - NOT A FAILED TEST


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> lizzie failed 3 in a row.........thats why he denounced her, failing one by mistake fine.......failing 3 in a row, come on


Wasn't it 3 in a year, rather than in a row? And one was overturned due to tester malpractice, wasn't it? Also, one of them seemed partly due to BC saying they'd help her manage the ADAMS whereabouts system, then reassigning the worker to something they prioritise over women and not telling her the support was ending.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Wasn't it 3 in a year, rather than in a row? And one was overturned due to tester malpractice, wasn't it? Also, one of them seemed partly due to BC saying they'd help her manage the ADAMS whereabouts system, then reassigning the worker to something they prioritise over women and not telling her the support was ending.


saying its not my fault, cause someone else was supposed to manage it for me, doesn't really cut it


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Wasn't it 3 in a year, rather than in a row. Also, one of them seemed partly due to BC saying they'd help her manage the ADAMS whereabouts system, then reassigning the worker to something they prioritise over women and not telling her the support was ending.



Yep, also unlike many of the male pro cyclists she was doing all the organisational/admin stuff herself rather than having an assistant or coach to help out with it.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5077944, member: 43827"]I have to take Salbutamol each day. Before the next ride I'm going to take an extra puff, perhaps it will help me up Caerphilly mountain.[/QUOTE]
tough mountain to climb.....best take 2 extra just in case lol


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5077944, member: 43827"]I have to take Salbutamol each day. Before the next ride I'm going to take an extra puff, perhaps it will help me up Caerphilly mountain.[/QUOTE]

I think its 20 extra you need to take


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> saying its not my fault, cause someone else was supposed to manage it for me, doesn't really cut it


Simon Yates would disagree, and would be correct in doing so


----------



## rich p (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> the same as all your posts about wiggins was boring, but you still kept making them..................another anti wiggo warrior whos had egg thrown in his face


Smutchin is correct, and not an 'anti Wiggins warrior', in any case. You're behaving childishly and rudely. 
On a day that Froome is headline news can you not give your Wiggins schtick a rest please?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

rich p said:


> Smutchin is correct, and not an 'anti Wiggins warrior', in any case. You're behaving childishly and rudely.
> On a day that Froome is headline news can you not give your Wiggins schtick a rest please?


were have i been rude..............and as i am pro wiggo, i have no need to schlapp him with schtick


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> However, a report in the Daily Mail on Fridayhas now alleged that the 36-year-old, who is set to retire after next month’s Six Days of Ghent race, provided insufficient information about where he would be after returning from the Tour of California. According to the report, Wiggins blamed the time difference and the fact it was an overnight flight but the incident was still marked down as a missed test - NOT A FAILED TEST


Yes, it's failed, see Part 14 Article 2 of the UCI Regs, where "whereabouts failure" is listed as a way to fail a doping test, just below using prohibited substances and refusing to provide a sample. It's just a different way to fail, with lesser sanction.

I look forward to taking tests set by the jowwy exam board, where not showing up is accepted as a way to pass, but I'm a bit worried about the jowwy roads policing unit and how only the truly stupid will fail its drink or drugs tests!


----------



## rich p (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> were have i been rude..............and as i am pro wiggo, i have no need to schlapp him with schtick


Pardon?


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Let's say he does get a ban, which seems entirely possible going on precedent. Let's also imagine that he's free to compete in next year's Tour. Again, seems a reasonably possible outcome.
> 
> Where does this leave Sky's zero tolerance policy? Will he be out on his ear?


Can we ask Gianni Moscon?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Yes, it's failed, see Part 14 Article 2 of the UCI Regs, where "whereabouts failure" is listed as a way to fail a doping test, just below using prohibited substances and refusing to provide a sample. It's just a different way to fail, with lesser sanction.
> 
> I look forward to taking tests set by the jowwy exam board, where not showing up is accepted as a way to pass, but I'm a bit worried about the jowwy roads policing unit and how only the truly stupid will fail its drink or drugs tests!


i don't set test's or police anything.....so you'll have nothing to fail on. i'm only posting what was quoted within the article you referred to in your post..........


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5077944, member: 43827"]I have to take Salbutamol each day. Before the next ride I'm going to take an extra puff, perhaps it will help me up Caerphilly mountain.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't. In my experience, approach one's maximum dose makes the listed side-effects much more likely to happen... I'm just thankful I only had bright red extremities!


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> i don't set test's or police anything.....so you'll have nothing to fail on. i'm only posting what was quoted within the article you referred to in your post..........


I don't see the bit in capitals in it. "Missed" is a type of "failed" for required tests.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Can we ask Gianni Moscon?


or maybe we should ask Jonathon tiernan locke


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> I don't see the bit in capitals in it. "Missed" is a type of "failed" for required tests.


However, a report in the Daily Mail on Fridayhas now alleged that the 36-year-old, who is set to retire after next month’s Six Days of Ghent race, provided insufficient information about where he would be after returning from the Tour of California. According to the report, Wiggins blamed the time difference and the fact it was an overnight flight but the incident was still marked down as a *missed test* 

i bolded, italic and underlined the papers quote of MISSED


----------



## Crackle (13 Dec 2017)

If I'm reading it right Froome has to prove his body metabolises Salbutamol in a way which could have led to the positive. If he can, he's clear, if he can't all bets are off for next year as he'll serve a ban, there's precedent.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> i bolded, italic and underlined the papers quote of MISSED


Yes, which the UCI Regs says is a type of failed, don't they?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Yes, which the UCI Regs says is a type of failed, don't they?


they may well do, but this is no longer about wiggins as people have already stated in a few posts above..................its about froome and his failed dope test.

it would seem that the usual people i see on this thread slating wiggins for the so called jiffy bag saga, have decided not to get involved with this thread now that its focusing on their hero Froomey......but then i'm not really that surprised to be honest.


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...ow-about-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case-362848


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> they may well do, but this is no longer about wiggins as people have already stated in a few posts above..................its about froome and his failed dope test.
> 
> it would seem that the usual people i see on this thread slating wiggins for the so called jiffy bag saga, have decided not to get involved with this thread now that its focusing on their hero Froomey......but then i'm not really that surprised to be honest.



They're both as bad as each other and there's the same rotten root cause, Sky.


----------



## Siclo (13 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> If I'm reading it right Froome has to prove his body metabolises Salbutamol in a way which could have led to the positive. If he can, he's clear, if he can't all bets are off for next year as he'll serve a ban, there's precedent.



My understanding is that Froome needs to prove by an independent pharmokinetic study that the his body metabolises the therapeutic dose in such a way that it leads to the reported value in the AAF. It took pretty much 8 months for Uliss tpi to be studied at Luasanne and the case to result in a back dated ban. 

Since there's no mandatory suspension for an AAF of a specified substance, if the lawyers can drag this out long enough he could be the first person to be stripped of all three grand tours.

I reckon RCS and ASO will want this sorted pretty quickly.


----------



## Crackle (13 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> My understanding is that Froome needs to prove by an independent pharmokinetic study that the his body metabolises the therapeutic dose in such a way that it leads to the reported value in the AAF. It took pretty much 8 months for Uliss tpi to be studied at Luasanne and the case to result in a back dated ban.
> 
> Since there's no mandatory suspension for an AAF of a specified substance, if the lawyers can drag this out long enough he could be the first person to be stripped of all three grand tours.
> 
> I reckon RCS and ASO will want this sorted pretty quickly.


I reckon you're right. Even if the ban doesn't kick in next year it will alter his thinking on what he targets unless he's sure he won't be found responsible but that element of doubt may just affect his racing and is definitely going to affect his press conferences and the pressure he feels. So even if he's cleared, this is going to affect next years racing for him.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

I think half a day is a bit early to say anyone has decided not to get involved in this thread.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Dec 2017)

good summary here http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

Sky will want it cleared up sooner rather than later.How much negative publicity can they take ?
My own take on Froome is why would you risk taking so much so late in the race ? I don't think there's that much of a advantage is there ? It'll all end ok,better had I'm going to watch him win the Giro !


----------



## User169 (13 Dec 2017)

Strathlubnaig said:


> good summary here http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/



Interesting. So they have to show excellent record keeping in order to show what Froome was dosed with having spent the last year arguing their medical records were a total shambles!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Sky will want it cleared up sooner rather than later.How much negative publicity can they take ?
> My own take on Froome is why would you risk taking so much so late in the race ? I don't think there's that much of a advantage is there ? It'll all end ok,better had I'm going to watch him win the Giro !


 Everyone's tired? A wee puff of an inhaler could mean seconds on the road, even if just a placebo


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Everyone's tired? A wee puff of an inhaler could mean seconds on the road, even if just a placebo


in this case its not just 1 wee puff though.........


----------



## derrick (13 Dec 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Everyone's tired? A wee puff of an inhaler could mean seconds on the road, even if just a placebo


It makes a big difference when my wife uses it, it's not seconds it's minutes.


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

If one approaches this issue from the standpoint of British athletes are just as likely (and unlikely) to cheat as other nations, the facts start to speak for themselves. There is a temptation to think British athletes are inherently clean, it's just Russians, Kenyans, Jamaicans etc etc that are dirty. I don't think that's the case at all

Money's still on stripping him of the Vuelta and probably a ban to run past the Giro but he'll be back (with exactly the same cloud hanging over him as Contador et al) for the Tour


----------



## 400bhp (13 Dec 2017)

There's some talk of the test itself being too simplistic due to the drug po


nickyboy said:


> If one approaches this issue from the standpoint of British athletes are just as likely (and unlikely) to cheat as other nations, the facts start to speak for themselves. There is a temptation to think British athletes are inherently clean, it's just Russians, Kenyans, Jamaicans etc etc that are dirty. I don't think that's the case at all
> 
> Money's still on stripping him of the Vuelta and probably a ban to run past the Giro but he'll be back (with exactly the same cloud hanging over him as Contador et al) for the Tour



That's a wholly separate psychological and cultural argument. We (the British) may just be as likely as other nations, then again, because of our culture we may not.

Interesting you use Kenyans in your example.

I really cannot believe that he has done this knowingly or on purpose.


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

400bhp said:


> I really cannot believe that he has done this knowingly or on purpose.



I guess that's where our reasoning diverges. I don't know him personally, just as I don't know any cyclist who has failed a drug test personally. So I can only regard him in exactly the same way as I do all the others that have failed a drug test unless and until some facts are available that make me regard him differently


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Nothing like. Clenbuterol is a banned substance, Salbutamol is a permissive, not even a TUE.



I doubt the public will take quite such a nuanced view in the event that he does receive a ban


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

Not saying it's right....

Meanwhile, exercise science and sports medicine expert Jeroen Swart, who oversaw Froome’s independent physiological tests 2015, admitted in a thread posted on Twitter that the news of Froome’s abnormal results are, “naturally disappointing but not entirely surprising.”

Swart added that he finds some aspects of the case bizarre, pointing out that, “The performance-enhancing effects of beta agonists [like salbutamol] are not at all convincing and the balance of literature shows no effect.”

Swart also said that he finds it hard to understand why Froome would take the product for performance enhancement as doing so within competition would almost certainly lead to an abnormal test result.

“If you know you’re going to be tested (as Froome would) then you would basically knowingly commit career suicide,” said Swart.


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Nothing like. Clenbuterol is a banned substance, Salbutamol is a permissive, not even a TUE.


its irrespective of whether its a banned substance or a TUE, its use is only permitted within certain levels..........Froome shows double the levels of permitted use and therefore failed a drugs test. The same as contador, valverde, ullisi, pertachi et al


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Lets see if LADS agrees with you.


and lets see what the response is from team sky, as a sky fanboy per se it doesn't look good


----------



## FishFright (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> However, a report in the Daily Mail on Fridayhas now alleged that the 36-year-old, who is set to retire after next month’s Six Days of Ghent race, provided insufficient information about where he would be after returning from the Tour of California. According to the report, Wiggins blamed the time difference and the fact it was an overnight flight but the incident was still marked down as a *missed test*
> 
> i bolded, italic and underlined the papers quote of MISSED



A missed test is a failed test, as you already know. I know your a fan of Wighat , and why not, but he's a pro sportsman and not your bro' so you don't need to defend his honour so vigourously. Unless you've invested in his brand ofc.

There's no way I'm clicking on a DM link , my computer would sulk for days if I did.


----------



## FishFright (13 Dec 2017)

Anywho back to Froome , I surprised he managed to fail on the Salbutamol as he's been taking it for years without going over the limit.


----------



## rich p (13 Dec 2017)

400bhp said:


> Interesting you use Kenyans in your example.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

FishFright said:


> Anywho back to Froome , I surprised he managed to fail on the Salbutamol as he's been taking it for years without going over the limit.


"I was riding downwind of another rider and must have inhaled overspray"


----------



## Crackle (13 Dec 2017)

This thread has just reminded me to order my repeat prescription.........


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> This thread has just reminded me to order my repeat prescription.........


I could hear you coughing from here, wee puff of old blue inhaler


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Interesting. So they have to show excellent record keeping in order to show what Froome was dosed with having spent the last year arguing their medical records were a total shambles!


Sky and record keeping, not their strong point.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Its like comparing crack cocaine to a paracetemol but sadly, I know what you mean.


From another source.... a wee bit worrying, one must admit 
_When salbutamol is inhaled In normal therapeutic doses it acts as a bronchodilator. It will increase airflow in an asthmatic airway but will have a negligible effect on anyone without the condition. 
When it is taken orally in much higher doses it can have an anabolic effect (increasing muscle mass), increase lipolysis (fat burning) and have an effect on blood lactate and potassium (increasing endurance). It also increases metabolism and may help mask the use of other drugs being taken._


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

I believe that earlier claims of its being a masking agent have been shown to be false; apparently it isn't.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (13 Dec 2017)

Gutted is how I feel about this. If he is cleared there will now always be a cloud over him. If he isn't cleared then every future winner will be doubted. Either way it is not good for the sport.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Dec 2017)

User3094 said:


> Indeed and would love to know the definition of "high" in terms of numbers as compared to Froomes levels.
> 
> I also wouldn't put too much weight on your source being some bloke from Bike Radar.


Fair enough, but right now I would not be surprised by anything.


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Sky and record keeping, not their strong point.


How I would hate to have my future and reputation hanging on Sky's record keeping and David Brailsford's public assurances....


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> How I would hate to have my future and reputation hanging on Sky's record keeping and David Brailsford's public assurances....


Up shoot creek without a paddle, speaking of rowing...


----------



## NickNick (13 Dec 2017)

Strathlubnaig said:


> From another source.... a wee bit worrying, one must admit
> _When salbutamol is inhaled In normal therapeutic doses it acts as a bronchodilator. It will increase airflow in an asthmatic airway but will have a negligible effect on anyone without the condition.
> When it is taken orally in much higher doses it can have an anabolic effect (increasing muscle mass), increase lipolysis (fat burning) and have an effect on blood lactate and potassium (increasing endurance).* It also increases metabolism and may help mask the use of other drugs being taken.*_



The section in bold is particularly interesting.


----------



## Buddfox (13 Dec 2017)

Strathlubnaig said:


> From another source.... a wee bit worrying, one must admit
> _When salbutamol is inhaled In normal therapeutic doses it acts as a bronchodilator. It will increase airflow in an asthmatic airway but will have a negligible effect on anyone without the condition.
> When it is taken orally in much higher doses it can have an anabolic effect (increasing muscle mass), increase lipolysis (fat burning) and have an effect on blood lactate and potassium (increasing endurance). It also increases metabolism and may help mask the use of other drugs being taken._



What is the source?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

FishFright said:


> Anywho back to Froome , I surprised he managed to fail on the Salbutamol as he's been taking it for years without going over the limit.


But he did fail and by a large amount


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

FishFright said:


> A missed test is a failed test, as you already know. I know your a fan of Wighat , and why not, but he's a pro sportsman and not your bro' so you don't need to defend his honour so vigourously. Unless you've invested in his brand ofc.
> 
> There's no way I'm clicking on a DM link , my computer would sulk for days if I did.


I can defend him as vigorously as I see fit to do so, in the same way as people on this thread have slated in anyway which they can.........and if you don't like it then ignore my posts


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> But he did fail and by a large amount


Which suggests something very unusual. Given that he was leading the race at the time and is such a high profile racer he would have been tested daily, and _known _he was going to be tested daily, I can’t see this being anything other than a genuine screw up.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Interesting. So they have to show excellent record keeping in order to show what Froome was dosed with having spent the last year arguing their medical records were a total shambles!


Are there inhalers which record activation dates/times, maybe over bluetooth to the Garmin or whatever that Froome spends so much time gazing lovingly at?  If he's left this record-keeping to Team Sky, he's probably farked.



jowwy said:


> its irrespective of whether its a banned substance or a TUE, its use is only permitted within certain levels..........Froome shows double the levels of permitted use and therefore failed a drugs test. The same as contador, valverde, ullisi, pertachi et al


Contador was done for a different drug and Valverde for blood doping, so clearly they're not the same. Petacchi's ban from 2007 was before salbutamol was removed from the banned list in 2010, although I think he had a TUE. The only similar case is Ulissi, who tried and failed to show it was permitted use producing an adverse analytical finding. Let's wait and see what they decide about Froome?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Which suggests something very unusual. Given that he was leading the race at the time and is such a high profile racer he would have been tested daily, and _known _he was going to be tested daily, I can’t see this being anything other than a genuine screw up.


He was tested daily and on this day, he took 30 puffs too many on his inhaler...........


----------



## Joffey (13 Dec 2017)

NickNick said:


> But most of those tablets aren't performance enhancing in any meaningful way, corticosteroids on the other hand...



I'm not sure that Salbutamol is performance enhancing per se


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Which suggests something very unusual. Given that he was leading the race at the time and is such a high profile racer he would have been tested daily, and _known _he was going to be tested daily, I can’t see this being anything other than a genuine screw up.



Who knows? It was after the ITT, maybe he was completely cooked on the next stage and everyone panicked a bit and a miscalculation was made. It's been shown with very careful management it is possible to take PEDs and avoid failing tests. People who take stuff they shouldn't be taking and then fail a drug test do so because they got something wrong in the management process


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Boo! Hiss!
> Let's speculate like it's 1999


Correct.......like they did in the 1st 46 pages of this thread........but now it's turned towards froome, they no longer want to speculate or insult


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

Cyclist has asthma.......cyclists asks doc for inhaler/medicine......doc gives it to him.....someone farked up.....? It wont be Froome.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Correct.......like they did in the 1st 46 pages of this thread........but now it's turned towards froome, they no longer want to speculate or insult


I've speculated more about Froome today than I ever did about Wiggins but you probably missed that because you're so busy self-gratifying about Wiggo with spin and misdirection.


----------



## rich p (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Correct.......like they did in the 1st 46 pages of this thread........but now it's turned towards froome, they no longer want to speculate or insult


WTF are you on about? 
I spend a fair amount of time in this section and have yet to spot anyone who has any axe to grind either way...

...with one obvious exception, that is.


----------



## FishFright (13 Dec 2017)

I have a nice axe to hand for both of them if that helps , double edged too !


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

rich p said:


> WTF are you on about?
> I spend a fair amount of time in this section and have yet to spot anyone who has any axe to grind either way...
> 
> ...with one obvious exception, that is.


Best you read through the 1st 46 pages again then and get back to me, but most of it won't show up, as quite a lot of this thread was deleted by the mods..........


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> I've speculated more about Froome today than I ever did about Wiggins but you probably missed that because you're so busy self-gratifying about Wiggo with spin and misdirection.


What a load of bullshit........ and point to any part of my posts were I point the finger at you or any other individual. I said some individuals who are no longer taking part in the post, some posts in this thread were deleted by the mods due to abusive comments being made by posters when trying to make a point that nothing yet had been proven about wiggins, yet they still speculated that he was a drugs cheat. 

And I do have inbox messages from mods informing of said deleted posts


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Who knows? It was after the ITT, maybe he was completely cooked on the next stage and everyone panicked a bit and a miscalculation was made. It's been shown with very careful management it is possible to take PEDs and avoid failing tests. People who take stuff they shouldn't be taking and then fail a drug test do so because they got something wrong in the management process


It has also been shown that dehydration can dramatically affect the amount that shows up in a urine test, so don’t jump the gun - however much fun that might be for you. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that this is a genuine and innocent screw up


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

Oh lovely. Can we check your inbox, please @jowwy? Just post the login details in this thread.

Or otherwise, STOP REGRINDING STUFF WE CAN'T SEE.


----------



## Milzy (13 Dec 2017)

Joffey said:


> I'm not sure that Salbutamol is performance enhancing per se


Salbutimol does absolutely nothing unless your lungs have been compromised by asthma, COPD, etc. You take as much as you need to take to end an exacerbation. It is not uncommon to take 30 doses at 250mcg in emergent cases. 
UCI needs to go back to sleep.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Oh lovely. Can we check your inbox, please @jowwy? Just post the login details in this thread.
> 
> Or otherwise, STOP REGRINDING STUFF WE CAN'T SEE.


Maybe he can post the wedding photos of him and Brad?


----------



## jowwy (13 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Maybe he can post the wedding photos of him and Brad?


And here's the 1st idiotic response that has nothing to do with the thread, but just posting to abuse some one who has a different opinion to himself.........cue a few more posts, then the mods will step and delete them and then marmion will start posting abuse on other threads just because nothing will be said as he's part of the CC click


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> That's a matter for WADA, not the UCI. It's on the WADA list like it or not.
> 
> Maybe it shouldn't be, I dunno, I'm not a physiologist or a biochemist or whatever. But it's a bit late to be raising questions like that.


Is it? Why would anyone pick that fight with WADA before they were facing massive career damage if they don't?


----------



## FishFright (13 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> And here's the 1st idiotic response that has nothing to do with the thread, but just posting to abuse some one who has a different opinion to himself.........cue a few more posts, then the mods will step and delete them and then marmion will start posting abuse on other threads just because nothing will be said as he's part of the CC click



Maybe just chill and remember if you act in an amusing way on a thread the urine will be removed at a high rate. Believe me I've been there myself a few times.

In addition; the criticism of the mod-u-like is just that and not attacks on you , I believe it's your over the top reaction to these which is getting you the attention.


----------



## roadrash (13 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> If I'm reading it right Froome has to prove his body metabolises Salbutamol in a way which could have led to the positive. If he can, he's clear, if he can't all bets are off for next year as he'll serve a ban, there's precedent.





FishFright said:


> Anywho back to Froome , I surprised he managed to fail on the Salbutamol as he's been taking it for years without going over the limit.



simply being dehydrated can give an increased salbutamol reading , its now down to test that will be done as to whether that happens to froome or not.


----------



## Moderators (13 Dec 2017)

This thread is currently about Froome's recent test results, not about what Wiggins may or may not have done in the past. Please stick to the topic and stop dragging up past disputes. 

Any more posts about who said what in the past are likely to be deleted, as will any posts carrying over disputes on this thread to other places will also be deleted.


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

Nibali twists the knife.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibali-chris-froome-salbutamol-case-is-terrible-for-the-sport/


----------



## roadrash (13 Dec 2017)

Moderators said:


> This thread is currently about Froome's recent test results, not about what Wiggins may or may not have done in the past. Please stick to the topic and stop dragging up past disputes.
> 
> Any more posts about who said what in the past are likely to be deleted, as will any posts carrying over disputes on this thread to other places will also be deleted.



according to the thread title this thread is about froome and wiggins Tues, is wiggins now off limits, if so, why.


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

This wasnt a TUE though was it,its perfectly legal to be taking it. But he or his doc went overboard with it.


----------



## mjr (13 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> This wasnt a TUE though was it,its perfectly legal to be taking it. But he or his doc went overboard with it.


Wiggins and I think Froome have had TUE for this, which was revealed by Fancy Bears HT, from back when you had to, so it's strongly related.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (13 Dec 2017)

roadrash said:


> according to the thread title this thread is about froome and wiggins Tues, is wiggins now off limits, if so, why.


Apologies, the moderator note was unclear. Wiggins TUEs aren't off limits provided they are relevant to the discussion at hand. However, some have been dragging up old disagreements relating to them and disrupting the thread. We want that to stop.


----------



## nickyboy (13 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> It has also been shown that dehydration can dramatically affect the amount that shows up in a urine test, so don’t jump the gun - however much fun that might be for you. It is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that this is a genuine and innocent screw up



Ide speculation is what the internet is made for. Your idle speculation that it is likely to be a genuine and innocent screw up is on a par with mine that it might not be


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Ide speculation is what the internet is made for. Your idle speculation that it is likely to be a genuine and innocent screw up is on a par with mine that it might not be


Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? The simplest explanation is the most likely to be the correct one. It doesn’t get much simpler than an innocent cock-up


----------



## Adam4868 (13 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Wiggins and I think Froome have had TUE for this, which was revealed by Fancy Bears HT, from back when you had to, so it's strongly related.


Ok i stand corrected,i didnt know you needed a TUE for salbutamol.


----------



## hoopdriver (13 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Ok i stand corrected,i didnt know you needed a TUE for salbutamol.


You don’t


----------



## Siclo (13 Dec 2017)

It'll come down to the politics of the situation and now it's in the public domain I don't think it looks good for him. The UCI will want to put daylight between themselves and Sky following Cookson's departure, particularly with the press that Sky have been attracting for some time.

ASO want a TdF winner not named Froome and RCS have got to be a bit narked too.

Braifords's language in his statement is interesting too, the emphasis being on 'chris' as an individual not on the team. I wonder if that's a bit of revenge for Froome's reluctance to back him publicly previously.

All that said this is the UCI, so you never know


----------



## Siclo (13 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Ok i stand corrected,i didnt know you needed a TUE for salbutamol.



As @hoopdriver says, you don't now, but @mjr is correct that both Froome and Wiggins had one. The requirement for a TUE was removed in 2010.


----------



## NickNick (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> You don’t



You do for high doses.


----------



## Joffey (14 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> This made me chuckle
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/irishpeloton/status/940834740025876480




As knowledgable about the history of the sport as Cillion is he is the biggest Sky-hater on Twitter and will be delighted with this news (despite saying he isn't).

I had to unfollow him, it's like Sky did something to him. Maybe they didn't send him a free book.


----------



## Joffey (14 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> It'll come down to the politics of the situation and now it's in the public domain I don't think it looks good for him. The UCI will want to put daylight between themselves and Sky following Cookson's departure, particularly with the press that Sky have been attracting for some time.
> 
> ASO want a TdF winner not named Froome and RCS have got to be a bit narked too.
> 
> ...



The separation from Team Sky and referring to Chris shouldn't be made too much of - if his positives are not explained and he isn't exonerated he WILL be getting the sack. Every team seems to speak like this at the time of a positive test.

What it means for Sky going forward is pretty interesting. IF Froome is found guilty and banned he will have to be sacked. That will leave Sky with Thomas to ride a GT or two possibly but I can't see them winning any, or even getting on the podium. The Sky brand will have suffered a lot of damage in this whole process... Might it lead to the end of the team?

I bet they wish they had kept hold of Landa now...


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

I suspect Sky's lofty morals will be found to be elastic enough to accommodate a ban for Froome and still keep him on the payroll...


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Dec 2017)

They have had enough bad press to sink another team,is Moscon not still being investigated for racist remarks ? Personally I don't think Froome will be banned,maybe wishful thinking on my behalf.I hope


----------



## Siclo (14 Dec 2017)

Joffey said:


> The Sky brand will have suffered a lot of damage in this whole process... Might it lead to the end of the team?



The sale of 21st Century Fox to Disney might well have an impact there but I don't know enough about the tangled web of Sky/Fox/Team Sky/Sky Italia etc ownership to really know just who owns what.

Can't see Disney wanting to be associated with a cycling team that keeps getting itself embroiled in drug controversies.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

Joffey said:


> As knowledgable about the history of the sport as Cillion is he is the biggest Sky-hater on Twitter and will be delighted with this news (despite saying he isn't).
> 
> I had to unfollow him, it's like Sky did something to him. Maybe they didn't send him a free book.


Sky's media management did seem to go a bit (US) Postal last year (only a press conference on one rest day and no interviews, wasn't it?), which might be rebounding on them now.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Depends on how they spin it - they also keep winning the Tour de France....


----------



## Joffey (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Depends on how they spin it - they also keep winning the Tour de France....



Even if Froome isn't found guilty Sky will struggle this year to win The Tour with him going for the Giro. It might be a very lean year for Sky. This isn't ideal Giro preparation and I can only imagine the circus that will follow Froome round - none of it great for him trying to go for the win sadly.


----------



## rich p (14 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> They have had enough bad press to sink another team,is Moscon not still being investigated for racist remarks ?


Keep up Adam; he's currently being investigated for pushing Reichenbach off his bike...

...allegedly!


----------



## Strathlubnaig (14 Dec 2017)

Tony Martin not sitting on the fence


----------



## Berk on a Bike (14 Dec 2017)

If anything makes me return to the fold it's a story like this.  That Inrng blog post someone else linked to is a great explainer btw if you haven't read it yet.

I'm sure it will all come out that the person to blame is Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Tony Martin is being a bit ingenuous here. The type of adverse finding turned in by Chris Froome does not call for an immediate ban, and he must know that.


----------



## Berk on a Bike (14 Dec 2017)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Tony Martin not sitting on the fence
> View attachment 387204


Immediately disabled after a positive sample? F**k me, that's a bit harsh...

I've read elsewhere because Salbutamol is a "specified substance" it doesn't trigger an automatic suspension. Or a piece of metal pipe to the kneecaps.


----------



## smutchin (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Tony Martin is being a bit ingenious here. The type of adverse finding turned in by Chris Froome does not call for an immediate ban, and he must know that.



I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't know, but you are of course right - that was made clear in the UCI statement.

However, Ulissi was prevented from racing in similar circumstances, so let's see what they do if Froome decides to turn up at the Tour Down Under... although tbh, I would guess the first race he's scheduled for in 2018 is either the Abu Dhabi Tour or Paris-Nice, and you'd hope the UCI will have made a decision on his case by then.

Ulissi got a nine month ban. The same for Froome would seem appropriate, along with the stripping of his Vuelta title. And if the ban is backdated to the date of the offence, he would still be able to ride the Tour next summer. And I'm sure the French fans would be very happy to see him there.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

I can't see how Froome is going to avoid a similar ban - although I would not be surprised to be surprised as it were...


----------



## smutchin (14 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> *Cough* Sky zero tolerance *cough*



Brailsford: It's very complicated. You proles couldn't possibly be expected to understand the complexities of the matter.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Dec 2017)

It' not just the fact that he had a positive sample. It is all the secrecy that has gone on. Presumably, because its Froome. It should be exactly the same procedure, regardless who you are or who you ride for. Until that happens cycling is always going to appear corrupt.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

There is an excellent reason for the so-called secrecy - discretion would be an equally applicable word - and that is to protect a riders reputation (no matter who he or she may be) in the event that this can be explained legitimately, especially in the case of tis sort where the substance in question is not banned outright or the subject of TUE. It maybe that it can. In which case one would needlessly damage a riders reputation. I wouldn't read too much into the 'secrecy'.


----------



## Milkfloat (14 Dec 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> It' not just the fact that he had a positive sample. It is all the secrecy that has gone on. Presumably, because its Froome. It should be exactly the same procedure, regardless who you are or who you ride for. Until that happens cycling is always going to appear corrupt.



I think it is the opposite - this would have remained secret until he was found to be guilty, however because he is Froome it was leaked.


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Dec 2017)

Storm in a teacup....bit of rebranding and it's business as usual.


----------



## smutchin (14 Dec 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> It' not just the fact that he had a positive sample. It is all the secrecy that has gone on. Presumably, because its Froome. It should be exactly the same procedure, regardless who you are or who you ride for. Until that happens cycling is always going to appear corrupt.



Tinfoil hat time...

The UCI only routinely announce AAFs if they result in an automatic ban (for reasons already noted by @hoopdriver). Ulissi's AAF for the same offence at the Giro in May 2014 wasn't announced until the end of June 2014, and he continued to race in the intervening period. The UCI didn't step in to prevent Ulissi racing until September 2014.


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Dec 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I think it is the opposite - this would have remained secret until he was found to be guilty, however because he is Froome it was leaked.


You may well have a point.

I cannot be the only one who finds this odd. He always comes across as being a bright guy. He would have known they would have tested him leading the race. To be a bit over the limit could be a possibility if he had taken more than usual. But to be twice over the limit, he would have to be sucking it in like there is no tomorrow and reloading cannisters as he went.

Unfortunately, regardless of the outcome. It will be an incident that will tarnish him for the rest of his career and beyond.


----------



## TheJDog (14 Dec 2017)

200 puffs in a single inhaler. That's 20000 microgrammes. I assume that would be waaaay over the limit.

WADA rules say over 16 puffs a day and you need a TUE. I can't believe that the SKY doctor would have just told him to increase his dosage without being incredibly careful. Oh, hang on, I can.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> *Cough* Sky zero tolerance *cough*


If Sky fire him, I expect another team will take him to the Tour. It would be the toughest ever tour for Froome, riding without the fabled Sky train (but maybe getting help from his former teammates, like he did from Porte?), but if he managed to come back from a ban and win it with another team, it would surely establish him up there with Merckx and Anquetil... albeit a bit more closely than he might like!


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Tony Martin is being a bit ingenuous here. The type of adverse finding turned in by Chris Froome does not call for an immediate ban, and he must know that.


Yes, but TM only needs another 7 riders banned and he gets a Rio Olympics medal.


----------



## sleaver (14 Dec 2017)

I was in Madrid only about 30m from home while he was on the top step of the podium holding the trophy aloft. Not sure how I feel about that now. 

Anyway, he was in the leaders jersey so he knew he was going to be tested. So unless several people had a major brain fart, it would be career suicide to knowingly overdose. Will be interesting to see if Sky’s record keeping is up to old standards or if it’s suddenly improved. 

Just throwing a wild theory here but as Ing say and mentioned in a previous post, there are the “unknown unknowns“ in regards to AAFs and there seems to be some suspicion as to how Le Monde and The Guardian got wind of this. Could Froome be some of those “unknown unknowns” which may account for his wins but someone in the UCI went “Here you go Team Sky, let’s see how you deal with this”?


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

Can't possibly see how he can escape a ban. In some way I think he might be best to take the ban rather than weasel out of it with some ropey excuse.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

kingrollo said:


> Can't possibly see how he can escape a ban. In some way I think he might be best to take the ban rather than weasel out of it with some ropey excuse.


I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.


If - and I think it's big if - he can establish that a permitted dose resulted in an adverse analytical finding, it would be a great thing for everyone, moving forwards the treatment of asthma in sports. Even if he tries and fails, it helps publicise that salbutamol usage should be minimised because there's some dispute about the current test regime.


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I can see the logic to that but it would really make no difference - he will forever have that asterisk in the mind. I think his best course is to fight it.



But he is way over, ? - I don't see how he can explain that away.

Unless with a TUE there is no limit to the dose - and explains that really he should have a gotten a TUE - so its an admin error - rather than an overdose


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> If - and I think it's big if - he can establish that a permitted dose resulted in an adverse analytical finding, it would be a great thing for everyone, moving forwards the treatment of asthma in sports. Even if he tries and fails, it helps publicise that salbutamol usage should be minimised because there's some dispute about the current test regime.


I agree totally. If you step back and look at this dispassionately, the odds if Froome or anyone trying to cheat with this drug is vanishingly small. It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all - and is easily detected. Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and _know _he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any. Clearly there is an anomaly here, an adverse finding, which requires explanation but there are already clinical studies showing that dehydration can produce adverse findings with this drug - one that is routinely prescribed to asthmatics. Whatever the result here, I would say the test regime would need to be examined as well, because there is simply no logic to this.


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I agree totally. If you step back and look at this dispassionately, the odds if Froome or anyone trying to cheat with this drug is vanishingly small. It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all - and is easily detected. Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and _know _he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any. Clearly there is an anomaly here, an adverse finding, which requires explanation but there are already clinical studies showing that dehydration can produce adverse findings with this drug - one that is routinely prescribed to asthmatics. Whatever the result here, I would say the test regime would need to be examined as well, because there is simply no logic to this.



But if that happens wouldn't they have go back and review all Asthma bans. ?
On a level playing field it gives little or no benefit - However in my experience of asthma it does give a benefit if you are having a bad asthma day - ie if you're airways are inflamed due to allergy or a cold then it helps - it such circumstances it can also get pretty addictive my son was once puffing his every couple of minutes when he was suffering with a chest infection.
He's over the limit and that comes with a consequence whether it boosts his performance or not ....IMO of course.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

kingrollo said:


> But if that happens wouldn't they have go back and review all Asthma bans. ?


At worst, only the salbutamol ones since the last rule change (is Ulissi the only pro-level one?). Other asthma medications could remain prohibited.


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

More than anything I am sad about the whole thing - it just taints a great story and some great cycling.

Ive said before sky ruin every sport they get involved in.


----------



## Siclo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> It confers virtually no benefits - if indeed any at all



I keep seeing this stated but there's some evidence of salbutamol having anabolic effects at high doses, hence the limit and the ban on oral and intramuscular administration.



hoopdriver said:


> Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and _know _he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any



Agreed, unless you want to break out the tin foil hat and think Jorge Jaschke is on to something.

It's interesting that the WADA guidance for maximum dosage for inhalation is based on inhaler use. I'm wondering if some bright spark has decided to use a nebuliser pre-stage, still a legal administration route (inhalation) but a much more efficient mechanism of delivery and then he's topped it up by inhaler use through the stage, he would have stayed within the rules on delivery method and dosage but ended up with much ore in his system than the guidance predicts. 

The extreme dehydration defence could be sticky since the stage was a short one, less than 4 hours (interestingly about the same as the half life of salbutamol) and the weather was cool.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

From what I have read any “benefits” if using higher, non-inhaler, doses, would _possibly _be for a short sprints. And even then the benefits, if any, are said to be small to negligable. We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the _certainty_ of being caught?


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the _certainty_ of being caught?


Do we think he was sufficiently knowledgeable or well-advised to know it was a certainty? If he was using pre-stage nebulisers or other innovative letter-but-arguably-not-spirit-of-the-rule usages, might he have gotten away with it for other longer stages?


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> From what I have read any “benefits” if using higher, non-inhaler, doses, would _possibly _be for a short sprints. And even then the benefits, if any, are said to be small to negligable. We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the _certainty_ of being caught?



Does there need to be logic ?

I once knew a guy in a reasonably paid job who got fired for stealing £10 from a birthday collection. 

Froome can't defend himself on not gaining an advantage.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Do we think he was sufficiently knowledgeable or well-advised to know it was a certainty? If he was using pre-stage nebulisers or other innovative letter-but-arguably-not-spirit-of-the-rule usages, might he have gotten away with it for other longer stages?


Gotten away with what? Where are the benefits?


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

kingrollo said:


> Does there need to be logic ?
> 
> I once knew a guy in a reasonably paid job who got fired for stealing £10 from a birthday collection.
> 
> Froome can't defend himself on not gaining an advantage.


Is there anything about Froome’s persona or character that suggests devil may care recklessness?


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Is there anything about Froome’s persona or character that suggests devil may care recklessness?



No.
But unless the test is wrong he appears to have broken the rules.


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Dec 2017)

Gotta agree there,it's sad for cycling as a sport.Im a massive Froome fan,I can't honestly see him deliberately 'doping' as such.He knew he was being tested every stage and the eyes of the world were on him.Hes the golden boy of cycling and no matter what he's tainted now.Armchair fans will never have trust in the sport.
Im still hoping for some sort of miracle explanation.Is there one ?


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Well Kingrollo, you just compared him with somebody who recklessly and compulsively stole £10 from a birthday collection as a possible explanation for his actions. I'm simply saying there is nothing about Froome that would suggest of that sort of reckless compulsion. I think that is one thing we can rule out straight away.


----------



## dave r (14 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Gotta agree there,it's sad for cycling as a sport.Im a massive Froome fan,I can't honestly see him deliberately 'doping' as such.He knew he was being tested every stage and the eyes of the world were on him.Hes the golden boy of cycling and no matter what he's tainted now.Armchair fans will never have trust in the sport.
> Im still hoping for some sort of miracle explanation.Is there one ?



The more I read on the subject the more I wonder, is it just a cock up, is it just a case that someone got their sums wrong? Froome has been controlling his asthma for some time so must know what he can and cannot take, he also knows he's under scrutiny, so I don't understand why he would willingly take enough for that much to show in a test, I recon he just took what he was given and didn't check it.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Gotten away with what? Where are the benefits?


Gotten away with similar usage procedures without triggering an adverse analytical finding. Possibly as minimal a benefit as not being seen using an inhaler on camera as much and the stigma of that.


----------



## Siclo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it?


I agreed with you on the logic front.

As to the effects, it depends on what you read, it's anabolic affect is certainly minimal in comparison with it's close compound clenbuterol however it's lipolysis effect is pretty much on a par but pointless in the middle of a GT. 

It's going to be interesting exactly what is now put into the public domain, if he avoids a ban and no information is released I don't think this one will go away the same way that Sky's never appearing study into altitude natives did when Henao had passport issues.


----------



## kingrollo (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Well Kingrollo, you just compared him with somebody who recklessly and compulsively stole £10 from a birthday collection as a possible explanation for his actions. I'm simply saying there is nothing about Froome that would suggest of that sort of reckless compulsion. I think that is one thing we can rule out straight away.



Sorry that wasn't the impression I wanted to give. I m just saying sometimes people do daft illogical things.
It could be that unless he pumped himself full of inhaler he wouldn't have completed the stage in anything like the time to stay in contention - if he had a cold or something.
As I say unless the tests are wrong it would seem that froome massively overdosed in his asthma medication


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Gotten away with similar usage procedures without triggering an adverse analytical finding. Possibly as minimal a benefit as not being seen using an inhaler on camera as much and the stigma of that.


And so he jeopardises a golden boy reputation, a great career, not to mention £4 million a year salary (and God knows what in endorsements) to avoid being seen using an inhaler of the sort GPs routinely prescribe to asthmatics? When the world already knows he's an asthmatic? This makes sense to you?


----------



## nickyboy (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> From what I have read any “benefits” if using higher, non-inhaler, doses, would _possibly _be for a short sprints. And even then the benefits, if any, are said to be small to negligable. We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the _certainty_ of being caught?



What are the chances of Froome and Sky Management deciding to take a chance and dose up on salbutamol? Virtually nil

What are the chances of Sky Management screwing up somewhere in the management of the dosages (particularly as this drug can be administered as a pill and via a ventilator)? Not virtually nil

What are the chances of Froome having some strange physiological quirk that produces a very adverse finding via standard dosages that Sky were not aware of with all their testing? Hmmm.......dunno, but feels very small

As you said, Occam's Razor


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

I agree - high probability of screw up somewhere. There are clinical studies that show that dehydration after a hard physical effort can adversely affect levels of salbutamol in the urine so that is something that may have compounded whatever screw up happened with Froome's dosage. Clearly there was a major cock-up with dramatic ramifications.


----------



## FishFright (14 Dec 2017)

kingrollo said:


> More than anything I am sad about the whole thing - it just taints a great story and some great cycling.
> 
> Ive said before sky ruin every sport they get involved in.



Or have I have said many times ...Murdoch ruins everything he gets his grubby hands on .


----------



## Siclo (14 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> administered as a pill



He'd better hope not, he might get away, or get a reduced ban, with an inhaled dosage screw up. Oral administration would be an automatic two year ban and career over.


----------



## Buddfox (14 Dec 2017)

Problem is, even it’s a cock-up, in 2017 that will get you banned. If that does happen, it’s yet more warning to teams to be mighty careful with the legit meds.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> And so he jeopardises a golden boy reputation, a great career, not to mention £4 million a year salary (and got knows what in endorsements) to avoid being seen using an inhaler of the sort GPs routinely prescribe to asthmatics? When the world already knows he's an asthmatic? This makes sense to you?


As someone who's been stared at for using an inhaler in the past and someone who remembers past scepticism of Froome partly for using an inhaler, yes, it makes sense to me. Froome says he's not ashamed of being asthmatic but I bet Team Sky's media managers didn't love fielding the questions about him being seen using the inhaler. Maybe whoever the media and sporting sides both report to (DaveB?) asked if there was anything they could do to make it less visible.

ETA: http://www.velonews.com/2014/06/new...him-to-use-inhaler-to-treat-his-asthma_331334 references the 2014 Dauphiné media storm after he was shown on TV using it while the Sky train were on the front.

Froome interview being broadcast on BBC News today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42345354

BBC BeSpoke podcast about it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05r0kvw


----------



## NickNick (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I agree totally. If you step back and look at this dispassionately, the odds if Froome or anyone trying to cheat with this drug is vanishingly small. *It confers virtually no benefits* - if indeed any at all - and is easily detected. Froome as race leader and a high profile rider would be tested daily and _know _he was going to be tested daily, so where is the logic or the perceived ‘benefit’? There isn’t any. Clearly there is an anomaly here, an adverse finding, which requires explanation but there are already clinical studies showing that dehydration can produce adverse findings with this drug - one that is routinely prescribed to asthmatics. Whatever the result here, I would say the test regime would need to be examined as well, because there is simply no logic to this.





hoopdriver said:


> From what I have read any “benefits” if using higher, non-inhaler, doses, would _possibly _be for a short sprints. And even then the benefits, if any, are said to be small to negligable. We go back to logic. Where is the logic for Froome to be messing with it? Against the _certainty_ of being caught?




Whilst it isn't much of a PED and wouldn't be worth risking a high dose of for those purposes, it has been reported to be usable as a masking agent. If this wasn't just an innocent mistake, that could explain things.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Nope. The masking agent rumour is a furphy. Not true. It ain't.


----------



## NickNick (14 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> What are the chances of Froome and Sky Management deciding to take a chance and dose up on salbutamol? Virtually nil
> 
> What are the chances of Sky Management screwing up somewhere in the management of the dosages (particularly as this drug can be administered as a pill and via a ventilator)? Not virtually nil
> 
> ...



You need a TUE for the pill form, Occam's Razor isn't particularly helpful in analysing anything to do with the real world imo.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

NickNick said:


> You need a TUE for the pill form, Occam's Razor isn't particularly helpful in analysing anything to do with the real world imo.


Spoken like a true conspiracist - forget the simple explanation, go for something exotic...


----------



## NickNick (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Spoken like a true conspiracist - forget the simple explanation, go for something exotic...



 If you say so. Personally think both conspiracy theories and occam's razor are generally a complete waste of time. The real world isn't back&white, its highly nuanced.


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Of course it’s nuanced. But when one comes down to brass tacks, it is usually the simplest, least dramatic and most boring explanation or solution that proves to be the correct one.


----------



## nickyboy (14 Dec 2017)

NickNick said:


> If you say so. Personally think both conspiracy theories and occam's razor are generally a complete waste of time. The real world isn't back&white, its highly nuanced.



Of course it's nuanced. But there aren't that many possible explanations are there?

1) Screw up in the testing system gives false result
2) Screw up in the administering system results in overadministering
3) Some weird physiological quirk, not spotted by Sky
4) Sky taking massive gamble in overadministering
5) Conspiracy to get Froome out of cycling

You can assign probabilities to these. Of course it can be a combination of the above. Most failed tests seem to be (2) or (4), but intentional overadministering when you know he's going to be tested sounds very unlikely. So, for now, I'm going with (2)


----------



## Crackle (14 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Of course it's nuanced. But there aren't that many possible explanations are there?
> 
> 1) Screw up in the testing system gives false result
> 2) Screw up in the administering system results in overadministering
> ...


Astonishingly, you've missed out deliberate cheating by rider! which is slightly different to 4.


----------



## nickyboy (14 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> Astonishingly, you've missed out deliberate cheating by rider! which is slightly different to 4.



I kinda assumed that he couldn't overadminister without the Sky entourage as it has a v short half life. But yes, you're right. Add that to the list. 

I still fancy (2) though


----------



## smutchin (14 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I'm simply saying there is nothing about Froome that would suggest of that sort of reckless compulsion



Close personal friend of yours, is he?


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

smutchin said:


> Close personal friend of yours, is he?


No. Neither is Donald Trump. Yet I don’t need to be his golfing buddy to see that the American President is a compulsive clown of the first order.

Froome is clearly not reckless or compulsive. On the contrary he comes across as quite calculating, cool, shrewd.


----------



## Doseone (14 Dec 2017)

Lukas Knofler has done a REALLY good thread on Twitter about this - evidence backed research about the UCI's position on this in relation to Salbutamol offences. It's not an easy read and is quite complex, but worth sticking with it.

He has written 36 tweets on it, you need to scroll down to the first one.

https://twitter.com/lukascph?lang=en


----------



## hoopdriver (14 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> Probably .... He took over the therapeutic dose, he's bang to rights, give him a ban, forget the pharmacokinetic defence as it won't work. Use the cockup explanation as mitigation, so only a small ban.
> 
> ...


Done. You’re in charge!


----------



## Crackle (14 Dec 2017)

Doseone said:


> Lukas Knofler has done a REALLY good thread on Twitter about this - evidence backed research about the UCI's position on this in relation to Salbutamol offences. It's not an easy read and is quite complex, but worth sticking with it.
> 
> He has written 36 tweets on it, you need to scroll down to the first one.
> 
> https://twitter.com/lukascph?lang=en


Do you mean all the tweets or just one with a report and if so which one, there's loads?


----------



## HF2300 (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> 46 pages about bradley wiggins NOT failing a drug test
> 
> I wonder how many more pages it will reach now that froome HAS failed a drug test............
> 
> ready steady go...................



18 so far today, apparently


----------



## Doseone (14 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> Do you mean all the tweets or just one with a report and if so which one, there's loads?



It's a series of 36 tweets, some with attachments, it is long. Scroll down his timeline until you see the one below, the following tweets are all numbered.


----------



## smutchin (14 Dec 2017)

Doseone said:


> It's a series of 36 tweets



Ugh! I hate people who do that. They’re worse than people who abuse TUEs. Why can’t he just st write it in a blog and tweet a link to the blog?


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

HF2300 said:


> 18 so far today, apparently


And some still in denial that he failed a drug test........even froome thinks he didn't fail it.

He also thinks it won't taint his legacy


----------



## HF2300 (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> And some still in denial that he failed a drug test........even froome thinks he didn't fail it.
> 
> He also thinks it won't taint his legacy



And all of it tedious.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> And some still in denial that he failed a drug test........even froome thinks he didn't fail it.
> 
> He also thinks it won't taint his legacy



You may wish to read up about it.

He actually hasn't failed a drugs test.

But then again maybe you don't.


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

400bhp said:


> You may wish to read up about it.
> 
> He actually hasn't failed a drugs test.
> 
> But then again maybe you don't.


So what has he failed with both his A and B samples then if not a drugs test? Is salbutumol not a drug?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> So what has he failed with both his A and B samples then if not a drugs test? Is salbutumol not a drug?



It's an Adverse Analytical Findng, which broadly interprets as a test has been performed where a UCI limit has been breached. But this in itself isn't a failure.

It's actually worth a read of the above Twitter post as it does follow the UCI's procedural nuances, albeit you have to assume he has read the right parts of UCI's codes correctly.


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> He's had an Adverse Analytic Finding. That has a specific meaning. You can argue forever about whether that equates to "failed a drugs test", a more colloquial and less specific term. But please don't. It's boring and achieves nothing.


Found during a drug test???? Or was his urine being checked for how much robinsons squash he drunk??


----------



## Bollo (14 Dec 2017)

Interesting take on it all by Phillipa York here...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/14/chris-froome-team-sky-drug-test


----------



## ColinJ (14 Dec 2017)

The Cycling Weekly Christmas double issue went to press before the story broke, so you can forgive them for this ...


----------



## sleaver (14 Dec 2017)

From what we know, is there any conclusive proof that he did overdose or is it purely down to his metabolism?

If it’s the latter, then if your a professional athlete who has asthma, your in a difficult position aren’t you. If you have asthma, you need drugs to control it but even if you take the legal amount, you know you could fail a test and you can’t take a lower dosage as breathing is quite a useful thing to do.


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Dec 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...gins-wife-cath-calls-chris-froome-slithering/
Cath Wiggins take on it !


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/...gins-wife-cath-calls-chris-froome-slithering/
> Cath Wiggins take on it !


Her husband is a lying jiffy bag smuggling drug cheat tho.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Dec 2017)

No love lost between those two.


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Her husband is a lying jiffy bag smuggling drug cheat tho.


Even though he didnt smuggle a jiffy bag.........and never failed a drugs test or showed an adverse analtyical finding in any test.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Even though he didnt smuggle a jiffy bag.........and never failed a drugs test or showed an adverse analtyical finding in any test.


I'm fairly sure that the froomedawg isn't a reptile, but it hasn't stopped Mrs Wiggins spouting.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Her husband is a lying jiffy bag smuggling drug cheat tho.



Is that a Jiffy bag in your shorts or are you going to beat me?


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Dec 2017)

I liked the bit about "my boy taking the heat for Froome....."


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> I'm fairly sure that the froomedawg isn't a reptile, but it hasn't stopped Mrs Wiggins spouting.


But your making quotes on things that wiggins himself has never done.........just slalnderous accusations


----------



## hopless500 (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> But your making quotes on things that wiggins himself has never done.........just slalnderous accusations


Slanderous or otherwise, however they have 'used' the TUE system, he showed exactly the same pattern of (ab)use as convicted dopers.

Edited to add: plus conveniently 'lost' vital bits and pieces, ie jiffy bags and laptops, and kept poor records. Sorry, but there're a few too many unfortunate coincidences for me.


----------



## jowwy (14 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> Slanderous or otherwise, however they have 'used' the TUE system, he showed exactly the same pattern of (ab)use as convicted dopers.


Not just wiggins had TUEs .......froome also had TUEs and lots of other riders, they are legal and the boundaries will always be pushed when legal ways are available.........but let's put one thing to bed right now whether you, marmion et all like it or not

Bradley wiggins did not smuggle a Jiffy bag, Bradley wiggins did not fail a drugs test, Bradley wiggins did not return a AAF.............but froome has, whether you like it or not, froome as returned two samples that failed a drug test and has to explain why.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Bradley wiggins did not smuggle a Jiffy bag, Bradley wiggins did not fail a drugs test, Bradley wiggins did not return a AAF.............but froome has, whether you like it or not, froome as returned two samples that failed a drug test and has to explain why.



He's bad'un. That does not mean that Wiggins is not a bad'un.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

ColinJ said:


> The Cycling Weekly Christmas double issue went to press before the story broke, so you can forgive them for this ...
> 
> View attachment 387324


Do you think sly digs at asthmatics are funny, then?


----------



## lazybloke (14 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> The extreme dehydration defence could be sticky since the stage was a short one, less than 4 hours (interestingly about the same as the half life of salbutamol) and the weather was cool.



Dehydration should be easy enough to test using the A & B samples.


----------



## mjr (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Bradley wiggins did not smuggle a Jiffy bag, Bradley wiggins did not fail a drugs test, Bradley wiggins did not return a AAF.............


The middle sentence is not true. Missing is a type of fail. See earlier posts.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Do you think sly digs at asthmatics are funny, then?


Digs at Froome and his breath-giving medication and his breathtaking performances are


----------



## hopless500 (14 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> Not just wiggins had TUEs .......froome also had TUEs and lots of other riders, they are legal and the boundaries will always be pushed when legal ways are available.........but let's put one thing to bed right now whether you, marmion et all like it or not
> 
> Bradley wiggins did not smuggle a Jiffy bag, Bradley wiggins did not fail a drugs test, Bradley wiggins did not return a AAF.............but froome has, whether you like it or not, froome as returned two samples that failed a drug test and has to explain why.


I didn't say he personally had smuggled anything. I didn't say Sky had for that matter either. I pointed out that it apparently disappeared along with all their records. 
Yes, lots of riders have TUEs. I'm sure some are genuine.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Do you think sly digs at asthmatics are funny, then?


I'll let Marmion answer that for me ... 

Oh, he has!


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> Slanderous or otherwise, however they have 'used' the TUE system, he showed exactly the same pattern of (ab)use as convicted dopers.
> 
> Edited to add: plus conveniently 'lost' vital bits and pieces, ie jiffy bags and laptops, and kept poor records. Sorry, but there're a few too many unfortunate coincidences for me.


The doctor lost his laptop and kept poor records NOT bradley wiggins.

The jiffy bag was also for the doctor as per shane suttons testimony. The doctor may have used for bradley, but he also used it for others too, within bc and team sky........


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> The doctor lost his laptop and kept poor records NOT bradley wiggins.
> 
> The jiffy bag was also for the doctor as per shane suttons testimony. The doctor may have used for bradley, but he also used it for others too, within bc and team sky........


Correct! Wiggins was a bystander in all that. An innocent bystander? Who knows. But definitely a bystander.


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Correct! Wiggins was a bystander in all that. An innocent bystander? Who knows. But definitely a bystander.


His name was used to give the case more meaning............

If bradley was going to drug up, im sure he wouldnt have left the drugs he was going to use on a coaches desk for everyone to see and then ask for it to be flown out to him during a race.....which again was totally incorrect as the name on the package wasnt even his


----------



## hopless500 (15 Dec 2017)

Y


jowwy said:


> The doctor lost his laptop and kept poor records NOT bradley wiggins.
> 
> The jiffy bag was also for the doctor as per shane suttons testimony. The doctor may have used for bradley, but he also used it for others too, within bc and team sky........


Er....i also didn't say it was Wiggins who lost a laptop or kept poor records. You are so determined to contradict any perceived slight to him that you appear to be not reading properly from the lofty height of your Wiggo soapbox.

To be frank, I don't really give a toss what he, Froome or anyone else do or don't do. It's got nothing to do with me. 
I enjoy watching the cycling and just take it as it comes. If people cheat/don't cheat/get banned/dont get banned.... it is still an entertaining sport to watch.


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Dec 2017)

Agreed - but I'd rather they played nice.


----------



## hopless500 (15 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Agreed - but I'd rather they played nice.


Yeah me too. But until the rules and regs are watertight it aint gonna happen. So I just take it at face value and sigh a little whenever a new 'story' emerges.


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> Y
> 
> Er....i also didn't say it was Wiggins who lost a laptop or kept poor records. You are so determined to contradict any perceived slight to him that you appear to be not reading properly from the lofty height of your Wiggo soapbox.
> 
> ...


so who was you referring to in reply to my post about Bradley wiggins, when you made these comments - *Edited to add: plus conveniently 'lost' vital bits and pieces, ie jiffy bags and laptops, and kept poor records. Sorry, but there're a few too many unfortunate coincidences for me*.

and I’m not on any lofty wiggo soapbox in the same way as people state that not slandering him, by making comments about is perceived drug taking.........where he is legally covered by a TUE, whether you like it or Not......


Now - Mr frommedog himself came out and made numerous comments about Bradleys TUEs even though he has received them himself to win or compete in races, now we find he's returned an AAF in not one but both his samples during a high level grand tour......some people refer to it as a mistake and a screw up, yet those same people didn't say the same about Wiggins....they just slandered and slated him without any credible evidence of wrong doing.........but we have evidence now that Froome was doped up on salbutamol. some say that this drug does nothing, but it must do as the UCI state at what levels of the drug your allowed in your system at any point and when DRUG tested froome was found to be OVER that allowable limit. Not by a small amount but by DOUBLE the amount allowed.

now as much as you say you don't care, you obviuosly do as your involved in a thread about the wiggins/froome tue........if you didn't care you would just ignore the subject post. the same as many people do about other posts they don't care about...........

its no wonder the politics part of the site has been removed, when people just go round slandering people just for the sake of it.

end of rant


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> some people refer to it as a mistake and a screw up, yet those same people didn't say the same about Wiggins....they just slandered and slated him without any credible evidence of wrong doing.........


Stop referring to deleted posts, please. They might show what you say but you can't prove it.



jowwy said:


> but we have evidence now that Froome was doped up on salbutamol. some say that this drug does nothing, but it must do as the UCI state at what levels of the drug your allowed in your system at any point


If you think UCI test levels are infallible, why do you think they are ever changed? Or do you think they reached some perfection with the last rule change?



jowwy said:


> its no wonder the politics part of the site has been removed, when people just go round slandering people just for the sake of it.


I guess you've not spotted the recent site announcement yet, or you think politics isn't part of current affairs.


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Stop referring to deleted posts, please. They might show what you say but you can't prove it.
> 
> 
> If you think UCI test levels are infallible, why do you think they are ever changed? Or do you think they reached some perfection with the last rule change?
> ...


 1. i'm referring to current posts and not deleted ones...........
2. no system is perfect, but we are currently working within the current system and froome failed in that current system
3. i have spotted the new current affairs section, but my post was about the previous deleted politics section and why it it was removed


----------



## nickyboy (15 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> Y
> 
> Er....i also didn't say it was Wiggins who lost a laptop or kept poor records. You are so determined to contradict any perceived slight to him that you appear to be not reading properly from the lofty height of your Wiggo soapbox.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure most people (and thus sponsors) would agree. 

Most people watch to enjoy the man v man contest, not a battle of who has the best chemist

The sport was dying due to repeated failed drug tests. It's not as bad now but for sure if Froome winds up with a ban it's a massive blow to the sport's credibility. If he's dirty then Joe public will conclude that they're all dirty


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> 1. i'm referring to current posts and not deleted ones...........


Cool. Which posts?



jowwy said:


> 2. no system is perfect, but we are currently working within the current system and froome failed in that current system


But why do you assume that the level set in the current system is correct and means that level does something? Let's wait and see what Froome proves or not.



jowwy said:


> 3. i have spotted the new current affairs section, but my post was about the previous deleted politics section and why it it was removed


The threads from the previous section have been moved to the new one and did the site owners ever say that the previous one was closed because "people just go round slandering people just for the sake of it"? The reasons given were a lot more basic than that.


----------



## User169 (15 Dec 2017)

So Froome has hired Mike Morgan. Previous clients include Bruyneel, Contador, Sharapova...


----------



## FishFright (15 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> So Froome has hired Mike Morgan. Previous clients include Bruyneel, Contador, Sharapova...



Incremental gains is getting off a failed test ?


----------



## hopless500 (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> so who was you referring to in reply to my post about Bradley wiggins, when you made these comments - *Edited to add: plus conveniently 'lost' vital bits and pieces, ie jiffy bags and laptops, and kept poor records. Sorry, but there're a few too many unfortunate coincidences for me*.
> 
> and I’m not on any lofty wiggo soapbox in the same way as people state that not slandering him, by making comments about is perceived drug taking.........where he is legally covered by a TUE, whether you like it or Not......
> 
> ...


To answer the first bit.... Sky is who I was referring to. 
To answer the rest of your rant.... you seriously are mistaking me for someone who gives a sh!t.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> So Froome has hired Mike Morgan. Previous clients include Bruyneel, Contador, Sharapova...


Team Sky's PR manager has just read your post:





(by Alex E. Proimos at http://flickr.com/photos/34120957@N04/4199675334 licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0 )


----------



## 400bhp (15 Dec 2017)

Listen,


jowwy said:


> Found during a drug test???? Or was his urine being checked for how much robinsons squash he drunk??



Ok, so you decided not to read it. Fair enough.


----------



## Bollo (15 Dec 2017)

INRNG have a more in-depth ‘state of play’ article about the sorry saga here, including a decent discussion of the uses and abuses of salbutamol.

http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/#more-32655


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Cool. Which posts?
> 
> 
> But why do you assume that the level set in the current system is correct and means that level does something? Let's wait and see what Froome proves or not.
> ...


1. I'm not your personal research analyst look for yourself 
2. I never assumed they where, I just stated that's the current system we have and if that was ok to ban pettachi and Ulissi, why should it be different to froome
3. I been in the politics section and many threads on the site, that just abuse and slander people


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> To answer the first bit.... Sky is who I was referring to.
> To answer the rest of your rant.... you seriously are mistaking me for someone who gives a sh!t.


So why are you still here posting on the thread then


----------



## Siclo (15 Dec 2017)

It seems Cath Wiggins holds a grudge


----------



## Crackle (15 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> So Froome has hired Mike Morgan. Previous clients include Bruyneel, Contador, Sharapova...


He's not got a great hit rate then has he.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> 1. I'm not your personal research analyst look for yourself
> 2. I never assumed they where, I just stated that's the current system we have and if that was ok to ban pettachi and Ulissi, why should it be different to froome
> 3. I been in the politics section and many threads on the site, that just abuse and slander people


1. You made the claim. I think it's because these Froome-loving Wiggins-bashers don't exist on here.
2. Petacchi was not under the current system. Ulissi was given a chance to defend himself - why should it be different to Froome? If he can't rebut it, then it's OK to ban him.
3. You mean like making wild unsubstantiated claims and then posting abuse when challenged? You'd fit right in, but it wasn't really like that.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5080900, member: 43827"]Sky just sold to Disney. Will Disney want to be associated with such a tainted organisation as Team Sky? Perhaps not good for their image.[/QUOTE]
Disney films may have inspired many young cyclists to try using drugs to lose weight and gain muscle:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIIzav9HIEw


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> 1. You made the claim. I think it's because these Froome-loving Wiggins-bashers don't exist on here.
> 2. Petacchi was not under the current system. Ulissi was given a chance to defend himself - why should it be different to Froome? If he can't rebut it, then it's OK to ban him.
> 3. You mean like making wild unsubstantiated claims and then posting abuse when challenged? You'd fit right in, but it wasn't really like that.


1. They are on here......open your eyes and you will see
2. I'm not saying froom has no right to defend himself, but then your question was about the current system and was it fit for purpose. Which I myself can't answer without sitting down with uci and doing a full performance review of the system and all involved in implementing it..........
3. I have received such levels of abuse of current and former members, but this thread isn't about substantiating those claims....

Now rather than constantly question my posts why not add something to the actual thread that's meaningful..


----------



## hopless500 (15 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> So why are you still here posting on the thread then


Because I'm off work sick, I have nothing better to do, and the thread interests me. Plus you are very entertaining


----------



## jowwy (15 Dec 2017)

hopless500 said:


> Because I'm off work sick, I have nothing better to do, and the thread interests me. Plus you are very entertaining


I've been called worse


----------



## Siclo (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> 2. Petacchi was not under the current system.



Petacchi had a TUE to use it but still had to remain under the 1000mg/ml limit, so still really a valid comparison. Petacchi has called for it to be banned


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> Petacchi had a TUE to use it but still had to remain under the 1000mg/ml limit, so still really a valid comparison. Petacchi has called for it to be banned


...and replaced by another treatment: "you can maybe substitute it with something else or another therapy. I felt better after I did so. It doesn’t help you anyway, only if you have an attack, it takes you up to where you before, not improving your performance."

Are any other treatments currently permitted?


----------



## Siclo (15 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Are any other treatments currently permitted?



All beta-2 agonists are banned (with a few exceptions subject to limits) as are cortico's in competition. Anticholinergics are permitted but most are not licensed for asthma use, theophylline is also permitted but it's not as effective as other treatments, it's also more of a preventative, being taken in pill form although can be injected for severe symptoms (so that's out), also side effects are an issue.

Short answer: Yes but not realistically


----------



## hoopdriver (15 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> It seems Cath Wiggins holds a grudge


I see she has posted an apology for calling Froome 'a slithering reptile'

I suspect, given the vitriol in her original post, that her apology is directed to any snakes who may be offended by the comparison.


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

Siclo said:


> Short answer: Yes but not realistically[/SIZE]


So why might Petacchi say they should be banned? Is he misinformed about replacement treatments, pulling up the ladder after he's stopped climbing, or something else?


----------



## Siclo (15 Dec 2017)

Who knows? As you're probably aware asthma has different triggers and different treatments work for different folks, maybe theophylline worked for him, or maybe he was using an anticholinergic, possibly off-label, off-label drug use is *very *common.

I think it's a strange stance.


----------



## Adam4868 (15 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I see she has posted an apology for calling Froome 'a slithering reptile'
> 
> I suspect, given the vitriol in her original post, that her apology is directed to any snakes who may be offended by the comparison.


Sounds like my Mrs after a drink or two.......she can swear with the best of em !


----------



## mjr (15 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> He explains his rationale clearly and logically here. Well, sort of. _“We can’t ruin cycling and everything that Froome did in these years for a darn puff of salbutamol. OK, but if he did something wrong and strange, OK, I’ll accept that and shut up, say, ‘Chris you are an idiot.’ But as it is, we can’t do this for an inhaler.”_


That seems to be the same confusing interview with Gregor Brown that I linked earlier. Congratulations to him if he's managed to sell the same work twice.


----------



## Siclo (15 Dec 2017)

Back to dehydration - marginal gains bite back?


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Dec 2017)

If Chris Froome does not think " His legacy will be tainted". He needs to join the real world. He has always come across as an intelligent guy but being in denial makes him sound like a fool.

Regardless of the outcome, there will be many who will not believe him and the Sky team are the last people I would want defending me.

How long is it before the Sky' medical man falls on his hypodermic to try and save the team?


----------



## User169 (16 Dec 2017)

Spoty might be fun this evening for once!


----------



## Adam4868 (16 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Spoty might be fun this evening for once!


Might be only Joshua turns up !


----------



## sleaver (17 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Spoty might be fun this evening for once!


Although it's an abnormal finding, I'm kind of surprised they haven't withdrawn him. Although in some ways, that in itself could be unfair as he hasn't technically failed a drugs test.

They are going to be saying he's won the Tour De France and La Vuelta this year and people who don't understand the actual situation will be going "hold on, he has failed a drugs test".


----------



## Bollo (17 Dec 2017)

They’ve just done the fluff piece and now the interview. Awkward.


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

so it's now the 18th December and Froome and team sky was aware of the AAF on the 20th September........................

how long should he be given to prove his innocence??

and is there double standards at play here because its Froome and team sky?? ( and by the way i'm a team sky fanboy, although not a huge Froome fan)


----------



## Twizit (18 Dec 2017)

Update / clarification here from the UCI:

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/

Interesting line in there for me was the "..... An Adverse Analytical Finding is not necessarily an Anti-Doping Rule Violation..."


----------



## User169 (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> ( and by the way i'm a team sky fanboy, although not a huge Froome fan)



Well I never - you've been keeping that quiet!


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Well I never - you've been keeping that quiet!


this adds what to the thread??


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

Twizit said:


> Update / clarification here from the UCI:
> 
> http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/clarifications-from-the-uci-concerning-anti-doping-proceedings/
> 
> Interesting line in there for me was the "..... An Adverse Analytical Finding is not necessarily an Anti-Doping Rule Violation..."


it either is or it isn't.......to say "not necessarily" is adding another level of grey to the already murky area


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't think so. From all I've read it's proceeding as per the regulations.
> And it's in Sky's interest not for this to drag on.


but surely nearly 3 months is enough time to prove innocence............you could hear the gasps of breathe last night at the SPOTY awards when he made the statement "i have never taken to much of my inhaler"


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> but surely nearly 3 months is enough time to prove innocence............you could hear the gasps of breathe last night at the SPOTY awards when he made the statement "i have never taken to much of my inhaler"


Really...was you in the audience ?


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> Really...was you in the audience ?


no - but i have very good surround sound on my TV.........if you couldn't hear the gasps, then i would turn up your hearing aid


----------



## steveindenmark (18 Dec 2017)

You do know that he is going to get off this dont you?


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> You do know that he is going to get off this dont you?


do we??............petachi and ulissi didn't


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> no - but i have very good surround sound on my TV.........if you couldn't hear the gasps, then i would turn up your hearing aid


I was preoccupied phoning up to vote for Chris..... innocent until proven guilty ? I'll take my chance and say it all all end well.


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> I was preoccupied phoning up to vote for Chris..... innocent until proven guilty ? I'll take my chance and say it all all end well.


only the phone vote wasn't open at that time


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> so it's now the 18th December and Froome and team sky was aware of the AAF on the 20th September........................
> 
> how long should he be given to prove his innocence??
> 
> and is there double standards at play here because its Froome and team sky?? ( and by the way i'm a team sky fanboy, although not a huge Froome fan)


I think Ulissi was given six months between AAF and ruling, so it doesn't seem to be double standards.



Adam4868 said:


> Really...was you in the audience ?


There were a lot of athletes in the audience. Probably quite a lot of them also have stress-induced asthma and were worrying that they might get asked the same, hence the gasps as they took their inhalers.

Anyone notice similar questions about this aspect of Mo Farah?


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> I think Ulissi was given six months between AAF and ruling, so it doesn't seem to be double standards.
> 
> 
> There were a lot of athletes in the audience. Probably quite a lot of them also have stress-induced asthma and were worrying that they might get asked the same, hence the gasps as they took their inhalers.
> ...


there maybe on the athletics forums....who knows? but then has he ever returned an AAF in athletics?


----------



## Adam4868 (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> only the phone vote wasn't open at that time


You sure ? I have this clever device where I can pause live tv


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> You sure ? I have this clever device where I can pause live tv


if you paused it at that time, then the phone vote still wasn't open and if you paused it for too long it would have been closed.............


----------



## User169 (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> this adds what to the thread??



Not a great deal, but "Wiggo = good, Froome - BAD" doesn't take us very far either.

In any case, I'm not sure there's very much more to be said right now until Sky come up with their explanation for the AAF.

I'd have thought Murdoch's deal with Disney has also got to be a worry for Sky.


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

DP said:


> Not a great deal, but "Wiggo = good, Froome - BAD" doesn't take us very far either.
> 
> In any case, I'm not sure there's very much more to be said right now until Sky come up with their explanation for the AAF.
> 
> I'd have thought Murdoch's deal with Disney has also got to be a worry for Sky.


explanation or undeniable proof?


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> there maybe on the athletics forums....who knows? but then has he ever returned an AAF in athletics?


If you follow the link and read @Marmion's summaries of what his coaches are accused of, that's not likely to return an AAF, is it?

Who cares about athletics forums? The Bike Bashing Corporation's Claire Balding asked Froome during SPOTY, just to ensure he didn't win the phone vote. There were no similar tricky questions to Mo about Salazar, no tricky questions to the tax-dodger... and I don't really know enough about the rest of the candidates to know what questions they could have faced.


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> If you follow the link and read @Marmion's summaries of what his coaches are accused of, that's not likely to return an AAF, is it?
> 
> Who cares about athletics forums? The Bike Bashing Corporation's Claire Balding asked Froome during SPOTY, just to ensure he didn't win the phone vote. There were no similar tricky questions to Mo about Salazar, no tricky questions to the tax-dodger... and I don't really know enough about the rest of the candidates to know what questions they could have faced.


tax dodger??? we talking lewis hamilton here or chris froome, cause i believe they both live in monaco these days???

and you asked the question about what questions Mo face, but i'm pretty sure that was last year and not this year and many questions were asked of Mo at the time and all were answered........Froome's is very fresh in the news and was during his record breaking season, so the questioning was relative


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

User said:


> Good natured humour?


some peoples humour is another person's insult..........it seem's theres a tight line between which on this forum lately


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> tax dodger??? we talking lewis hamilton here or chris froome, cause i believe they both live in monaco these days???


Fair point. Could ask some questions of either. Hamilton also dodged some tax by registering his private jet in the Isle of Man. I don't think Froome has a private jet BICBW.



jowwy said:


> and you asked the question about what questions Mo face, but i'm pretty sure that was last year and not this year


No, he remained with Salazar until October this year.



jowwy said:


> and many questions were asked of Mo at the time and all were answered........


During SPOTY 2016? I must have forgotten that interview. Is it online anywhere? It's not in the youtube copy at

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAP4evqxQGM


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Fair point. Could ask some questions of either. Hamilton also dodged some tax by registering his private jet in the Isle of Man. I don't think Froome has a private jet BICBW.
> 
> 
> No, he remained with Salazar until October this year.
> ...



i never said it was on last years SPOTY but it was while he was competing in rio and during the london world champs, many questions asked and many questions answered, it was also all over the papers too.............

again Hamilton doesn't live in the UK so where he pays his taxes and too whom is anyones guess, same can be said for chris froome....but what your now doing is taking the thread off track.


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> i never said it was on last years SPOTY but it was while he was competing in rio and during the london world champs, many questions asked and many questions answered, it was also all over the papers too.............


Right: not on SPOTY so massively different to what they did to Froome.



jowwy said:


> again Hamilton doesn't live in the UK so where he pays his taxes and too whom is anyones guess, same can be said for chris froome....but what your now doing is taking the thread off track.


No, I'm still replying to the suggestion that the gasps at SPOTY were due to Froome's answer rather than the blatent gerrymandering of the BBC by asking the question of only one candidate, which is very unusual - possibly without precedent?

Now, who was it who made that claim which took this thread "off track"...? 


jowwy said:


> you could hear the gasps of breathe last night at the SPOTY awards when he made the statement "i have never taken to much of my inhaler"


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Right: not on SPOTY so massively different to what they did to Froome.
> 
> 
> No, I'm still replying to the suggestion that the gasps at SPOTY were due to Froome's answer rather than the blatent gerrymandering of the BBC by asking the question of only one candidate, which is very unusual - possibly without precedent?
> ...


i'm pretty sure my claim was about chris froome drug taking and the mention of it SPOTY..............i made no reference to tax dodging and asking the questions of Mo farah and Lewis hamilton........but hey ho


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

jowwy said:


> i'm pretty sure my claim was about chris froome drug taking and the mention of it SPOTY..............i made no reference to tax dodging and asking the questions of Mo farah and Lewis hamilton........but hey ho


Yes but why was it OK to ask Froome about ongoing doping investigations and not Farah about the ones connected to his coach this year?

But I suspect you're OK if people apply one rule for Froome and another for everyone else


----------



## rich p (18 Dec 2017)

I suspect Chris Froome wanted to answer a tame question. Ffor it to have been unmentioned would have seemed very odd.
It was clearly choreographed and rehearsed.


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Yes but why was it OK to ask Froome about ongoing doping investigations and not Farah about the ones connected to his coach this year?
> 
> But I suspect you're OK if people apply one rule for Froome and another for everyone else


why should Mo Farah be questioned about his coach........Mo isn't under investigation for drugs use, chris froome is


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/r...ouble-standards-over-chris-froome-case-363645
> 
> _Tony Martin gets ‘clarification’ phone call after accusing UCI of ‘double standards’ over Chris Froome case
> German says he's now satisfied that case is being handled properly, but will continue to be outspoken about anti-doping_


If they're still on World Tour riders who have published misleading statements about it, I guess they won't get around to phoning @jowwy until well into next year


----------



## jowwy (18 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> If they're still on World Tour riders who have published misleading statements about it, I guess they won't get around to phoning @jowwy until well into next year


He'll be serving his ban by then


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/r...ouble-standards-over-chris-froome-case-363645
> 
> _Tony Martin gets ‘clarification’ phone call after accusing UCI of ‘double standards’ over Chris Froome case
> German says he's now satisfied that case is being handled properly, but will continue to be outspoken about anti-doping_



You mean like Bjarne Riis was and Lance Armstrong was and Chris Froome is.

It appears they all speak with forked tongues.


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Unless you have some absolutely gobsmacking evidence to the contrary, there is a vast, vast gulf between Chris Froome and Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2017)

All this accusing and defending people we’ve never even met.


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Not defending (or accusing) anybody - just a journalist with an interest in accuracy in reportage


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Not defending (or accusing) anybody - just a journalist with an interest in accuracy in reportage



Have you read any part of this thread, or are you thinking I’m responding to your post?


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Have you read any part of this thread, or are you thinking I’m responding to your post?


I thought you were responding. And you must not have read much of it because if you had you would have seen that I have posted frequently on this thread.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> I thought you were responding. And you must not have read much of it because if you had you would have seen that I have posted frequently on this thread.



Please explain to me how much I have read, and how the frequency of your posting has anything to do with my post?


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Please explain to me how much I have read, and how the frequency of your posting has anything to do with my post?


Er...you just asked me if I had read any of the thread. You don't even seem to read your own posts...


----------



## rich p (19 Dec 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> we’ve never even met


WTF has that got to do with it?
People accuse Trump, Farage, Corbyn et al, of many things, without having shared tea and cakes with them.
Some of those blackguards even post on this forum.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Er...you just asked me if I had read any of the thread. You don't even seem to read your own posts...



So no explanation then.


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> So no explanation then.


None required. On your way, small change. Not interested in your trolling. Take it somewhere else.


----------



## Tin Pot (19 Dec 2017)

rich p said:


> WTF has that got to do with it?



It would lend a proximity to the level of emotion being bandied about, some justification for the arguments.

Really should be able to discuss the merits and demerits without deeply entrenched views given that this is about strangers.


----------



## hoopdriver (19 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> In a desperate attempt to bring things back on topic.... here's a slightly old article.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...rse-test-result-vuelta-a-espana-a8115196.html
> 
> ...


Interesting indeed!
I was wondering about some of those same issues.


----------



## jowwy (19 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> In a desperate attempt to bring things back on topic.... here's a slightly old article.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...rse-test-result-vuelta-a-espana-a8115196.html
> 
> ...


looks like froome is in denial and thinks being twice over the limit is ok............


----------



## Adam4868 (19 Dec 2017)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ger...s-froome-but-im-racing-my-own-tour-de-france/
Sure he does believe him,but it might be his chance to shine ?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ger...s-froome-but-im-racing-my-own-tour-de-france/
> Sure he does believe him,but it might be his chance to shine ?



Very interesting. Given what we now know (Sky knew about the adverse findings in September) I wonder if Thomas knew and used that to his advantage in getting some more power within the team. He was seen to be commenting about leaving Sky a few weeks ago.

In any event Sky have no one-else anyway really (not discounting some of the other second tier GT contenders of which IMO Thomas is one). I wonder what Landa makes of all this, given he appears to be riding the tour and playing second fiddle (and maybe thrird fiddle with Valpiti in there) riding the TdF.


----------



## Slick (19 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ger...s-froome-but-im-racing-my-own-tour-de-france/
> Sure he does believe him,but it might be his chance to shine ?


The more he said he believed him, the more I heard he didn't.


----------



## hoopdriver (20 Dec 2017)

Slick said:


> The more he said he believed him, the more I heard he didn't.


Indeed. I wonder if that was deliberate, Shakespeare's "smiler with the knife"


----------



## Slick (20 Dec 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> Indeed. I wonder if that was deliberate, Shakespeare's "smiler with the knife"


He would obviously argue not, but I kept thinking the lady doth protest too much, a bit like a football manager getting the public show of support from the chairman.


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Dec 2017)

It would be hard to over speculate, but i personally dont think he cheated knowingly,If that makes sense,i just cant see him having won the Tour then going into the Vuelta after 18 stages taking that sort of risk ? Being tested every day he knew what was coming.My guess would be that they will ban him for missuse,accidently taking more than allowed.I dont think it will be too long and i dont think he will have his victory taken off him.
Thats me being positive,he cant be that stupid after 10 plus years as a pro.Hes at the top of his game anyway,strange to take that sort of risk then.
On another note,it could well be the unravelling of sky if it is proven.


----------



## Crackle (21 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> At a loose end today so, I've been reading around the internet, including some of the more ... er ... tin-foil-hat-wearing areas. Buried in amongst some flaky sensationalist writing I'm seeing the following theory - and it does make some sense :
> 
> Froome was using oral salbutamol as a weight-loss PED (it is used for weight loss in bodybuilding circles and has been touted as a potential obesity treatment). His use via an inhaler for asthma is just a cover to explain its presence in the body and he may not actually have asthma at all.
> 
> ...


I dread to think how many dribbling loony posts in The Clinic you've actually read.


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Dec 2017)

He’s been treated for asthma since he was ten. That is certainly plotting well ahead, isn’t it?


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> It would be hard to over speculate, but i personally dont think he cheated knowingly,If that makes sense,i just cant see him having won the Tour then going into the Vuelta after 18 stages taking that sort of risk ? Being tested every day he knew what was coming.My guess would be that they will ban him for missuse,accidently taking more than allowed.I dont think it will be too long and i dont think he will have his victory taken off him.
> Thats me being positive,he cant be that stupid after 10 plus years as a pro.Hes at the top of his game anyway,strange to take that sort of risk then.
> On another note,it could well be the unravelling of sky if it is proven.


This makes far more sense. There is no logic or benefit for him to attempt to cheat in this way or with this drug. An unfortunate accident which will cost him dearly.


----------



## Siclo (21 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> The reason I find that entirely plausible is partly because it fits the Sky modus operandi with Wiggins, and also because it provides an explanation for the high test value, which inhaler use does not. That said, it does seem an unlikely drug to cheat with mid-race.



The double walled tin-foil hat theory goes:

Use as a PED in high doses during off-season for weight loss.
Extract blood while loaded on salbutamol
Infuse blood after bad day in Vuelta.
Be way over the limit.

This all depends on if you think the peloton is still blood doping


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Dec 2017)

Aliens did it. Elvis helped them.


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Dec 2017)

There's something fishy about it that's for sure.Who leaked the story ? Cookson knew about it when he went on TV to say sky needed their reputation back.I guess Lappartient knew to...who's interest was it to let the story out ?


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Dec 2017)

Given the number of people who dislike/distrust SKY and don't care for Chris Froome, I'd say the suspect list would be pretty long.


----------



## dave r (21 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> It would be hard to over speculate, but i personally dont think he cheated knowingly,If that makes sense,i just cant see him having won the Tour then going into the Vuelta after 18 stages taking that sort of risk ? Being tested every day he knew what was coming.My guess would be that they will ban him for missuse,accidently taking more than allowed.I dont think it will be too long and i dont think he will have his victory taken off him.
> Thats me being positive,he cant be that stupid after 10 plus years as a pro.Hes at the top of his game anyway,strange to take that sort of risk then.
> On another note,it could well be the unravelling of sky if it is proven.



Yes, I'm inclined to think this is a cock up of some sort.


----------



## smutchin (21 Dec 2017)

Adam4868 said:


> There's something fishy about it that's for sure.Who leaked the story ? Cookson knew about it when he went on TV to say sky needed their reputation back.I guess Lappartient knew to...who's interest was it to let the story out ?



Great minds think alike - viz. you and Big Tex...

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/3933/...hing-is-not-right-about-the-way-this-unfolded


----------



## FishFright (21 Dec 2017)

dave r said:


> Yes, I'm inclined to think this is a cock up of some sort.



Getting caught often is


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Dec 2017)

smutchin said:


> Great minds think alike - viz. you and Big Tex...
> 
> http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/3933/...hing-is-not-right-about-the-way-this-unfolded


WTF would Lance know about doping and dodgy goings on.Ill give his podcast a listen later.


----------



## Slick (21 Dec 2017)

smutchin said:


> Great minds think alike - viz. you and Big Tex...
> 
> http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/3933/...hing-is-not-right-about-the-way-this-unfolded


Is he the best man to comment? Why is he surprised that Froome isn't the type of guy to go sit on a beach no matter how beautiful his wife and baby are? Is he trying to allude the new administration "leaked" the story?


----------



## nickyboy (21 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's definitely that. Someone screwed up. What's unclear is what they were doing when they screwed up.



That's been my speculative view all along. It isn't a screw up of legitimate salbutamol use. Sky were carefully managing his intake to maximise effect whilst remaining within limits. And then something went wrong and, in a pressured situation, a serious miscalculation was made


----------



## dave r (21 Dec 2017)

FishFright said:


> Getting caught often is



I'm aware of that, I'm also aware that this whole thing doesn't make sense.


----------



## dave r (21 Dec 2017)

nickyboy said:


> That's been my speculative view all along. It isn't a screw up of legitimate salbutamol use. Sky were carefully managing his intake to maximise effect whilst remaining within limits. And then something went wrong and, in a pressured situation, a serious miscalculation was made



Yes, I'm thinking along similar lines.


----------



## mjr (21 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Don't forget the linked dribbling loony blogs! And the unhinged twitter rants.
> 
> It's a dirty job ...


But nobody needs to do it?


----------



## Siclo (22 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> But nobody needs to do it?



Oh I dunno...it's all part of the entertainment and the reality very often turns out a damn sight weirder than the ravings. This is the sport that brought you such things as intravenous baby food abuse and experimentation with synthetic dogs blood.

The only thing that's usually crazier than how the rules were broken are some of the reasons they can come up with for the results.


----------



## Bollo (22 Dec 2017)

There’s an ex pro who I occasionally meet while out on rides (somewhere between an acquaintance and Fight Club’s single-serving friend) who rode for some Belgian domestic teams in the late 90s, truly the Wild West of drug abuse. He’s got drug stories that would cause the internet to error out and all of which would end with me in the libel courts if I reproduced them.

I’m not entirely convinced by his crazier anecdotes, but he was accurately calling foul over Sky at a time when the sun was shining out of their marginal arses. If some of his other claims/theories/ravings turn out to be true then buckle up fanboys!



Dogtrousers said:


> Christian Prudhomme wants them to get on with it.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...72eac1e73b6_story.html?utm_term=.38881b89c0fc


Top viz tip - if you get a paywall page for the Washington post then just flip your browser to ‘private’ mode and it won’t pick up the cookie that limits your page views. Private mode is also a good first step in hiding your porn habit Damian.


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Dec 2017)

Bollo said:


> There’s an ex pro who I occasionally meet while out on rides (somewhere between an acquaintance and Fight Club’s single-serving friend) who rode for some Belgian domestic teams in the late 90s, truly the Wild West of drug abuse. He’s got drug stories that would cause the internet to error out and all of which would end with me in the libel courts if I reproduced them.
> 
> I’m not entirely convinced by his crazier anecdotes, but he was accurately calling foul over Sky at a time when the sun was shining out of their marginal arses. If some of his other claims/theories/ravings turn out to be true then buckle up fanboys!
> 
> ...



I think I've had that same conversation with the same person, I dismissed and put it down to sour grapes at the time but he's not sounding so daft now.


----------



## sleaver (22 Dec 2017)

Is there a time limit on when any PK test has to be done or an explanation given?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (22 Dec 2017)

sleaver said:


> Is there a time limit on when any PK test has to be done or an explanation given?


Just after SirDave et al have got something together which sounds plausible...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Dec 2017)

Marginal explains


----------



## mjr (22 Dec 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Marginal explains


Margsplaining


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Dec 2017)

Pufflailing


----------



## Adam4868 (22 Dec 2017)




----------



## keithmac (23 Dec 2017)

Has anybody ever won "clean" then?, no drugs medicinal or otherwise?.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (23 Dec 2017)

keithmac said:


> Has anybody ever won "clean" then?, no drugs medicinal or otherwise?.


Just Bradders


----------



## hoopdriver (23 Dec 2017)

keithmac said:


> Has anybody ever won "clean" then?, no drugs medicinal or otherwise?.


I read an interview with Frederico Bahamontes (winner TdF 1959) and he said he was always quite leery of messing around with drugs and didn't use them. He was saying this as an old man in his 80s, looking back, with nothing really to win or lose either way; I believe him.


----------



## mjr (27 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Ullisi's lawyer reckons that Froome's defence may be a risky one that could result in a 2 year ban.
> 
> http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/ulissi-lawyer-froome-risk-longer-ban_453938


Lawyer thinks other lawyers using other tactics aren't as good as him. It's a shock, isn't it?


----------



## hoopdriver (27 Dec 2017)

Exactly. He has some face to lose potentially, if Froome’s/Sky’s lawyers succeed where he failed. And they may well do.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

I spotted some twitterland muttering about Froome*/Thomas/Peols and others from other teams training in South Africa and highlighting that the are no operational testing labs there...

*stuck in this thread rather than doping git thread as it mentioned Froomedawg


----------



## Slick (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> I spotted some twitterland muttering about Froome*/Thomas/Peols and others from other teams training in South Africa and highlighting that the are no operational testing labs there...
> 
> *stuck in this thread rather than doping git thread as it mentioned Froomedawg


I presume the suggestion is they must be doping if they chose to train there? I suppose that's the problem when allegations aren't dealt with in a timely manner, everything you do can now be construed as the act of a guilty man. Although, the allegation alone is probably enough anyway.


----------



## mjr (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> I spotted some twitterland muttering about Froome*/Thomas/Peols and others from other teams training in South Africa and highlighting that the are no operational testing labs there...
> 
> *stuck in this thread rather than doping git thread as it mentioned Froomedawg


Can't they send samples to a testing lab elsewhere? It would be worse if they were training somewhere with a suspected-to-be-corrupt testing regime.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Can't they send samples to a testing lab elsewhere? It would be worse if they were training somewhere with a suspected-to-be-corrupt testing regime.


No local testers nor a system in place to collect samples


----------



## Andrew_P (28 Dec 2017)

self-gratification artists doesn't fit


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

User said:


> What does the W in WADA stand for?


Wiggo?


----------



## Crackle (28 Dec 2017)

Woeful


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 Dec 2017)

Wales?


----------



## Adam4868 (28 Dec 2017)

Warriors.......I don't want a bad word said against Chris x


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

This thread died a death ages ago. Mods please lock it


----------



## lyn1 (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> I spotted some twitterland muttering about Froome*/Thomas/Peols and others from other teams training in South Africa and highlighting that the are no operational testing labs there...
> 
> *stuck in this thread rather than doping git thread as it mentioned Froomedawg



I do not buy this as a way of avoiding testing. All the riders whereabouts locations will be recorded on ADAMS. I am aware of situations where OOC tests have been conducted by testers who were not resident in the country where the riders were located...ie they were flown in to do the tests. I am also aware of testers taking advantage of situations where riders from various teams, who were likely to be OOC tested individually and at home in the near future (possibly in different countries), were tested when a number of them could be found in the same location...presumably more cost effective. Analysis of tests does not have to be done in the country of collection if facilities are unavailable.


----------



## Maenchi (28 Dec 2017)

keithmac said:


> Has anybody ever won "clean" then?, no drugs medicinal or otherwise?.


As drugs or and enhancements have been used from the inception of the Tour de France, I guess the answer could quite likely be 'no'.
But where is the line ? coffee will be a banned substance next....


----------



## mjr (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> This thread died a death ages ago. Mods please lock it


Flaming backseat moderator! Can't we at least wait for the ruling on whether Froome should have had a TUE for his Vuelta salbutamol?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 Dec 2017)

It was won clean in 1959


----------



## rich p (28 Dec 2017)

User said:


> Weak


Withoutmuchmoneytosendtestersaroundtheworld


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

mjr said:


> Flaming backseat moderator! Can't we at least wait for the ruling on whether Froome should have had a TUE for his Vuelta salbutamol?


He should have. Case closed.


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

Maenchi said:


> As drugs or and enhancements have been used from the inception of the Tour de France, I guess the answer could quite likely be 'no'.
> But where is the line ? coffee will be a banned substance next....


BTW there is already a limit on caffeine under WADA. If you go google you can see every substance on the list, some may surprise you.


----------



## Maenchi (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> BTW there is already a limit on caffeine under WADA. If you go google you can see every substance on the list, some may surprise you.


i'll have a look....In the future it must come to be that a super drug free tour will happen, I mean they don't use proper drugs anymore like amphetamines and cocaine..


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

Maenchi said:


> i'll have a look....In the future it must come to be that a super drug free tour will happen, I mean they don't use proper drugs anymore like amphetamines and cocaine..


I’ve watched countless documentaries and I can only conclude that to win at elite level in all sports you need every little help you can get. Even the Olympic shooters abuse substances to lower their nerves and stop them from shaking. Even amateurs are doping. When I watch pro cycling I just enjoy it and don’t ever think about drugs. It’s great drama either way.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> I’ve watched countless documentaries and I can only conclude that to win at elite level in all sports you need every little help you can get. Even the Olympic shooters* abuse substances to lower their nerves and stop them from shaking*. Even amateurs are doping. When I watch pro cycling I just enjoy it and don’t ever think about drugs. It’s great drama either way.


That was the excuse that late snooker star Bill Werbeniuk used for drinking 50+ pints of lager a day!


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

ColinJ said:


> That was the excuse that late snooker star Bill Werbeniuk used for drinking 50+ pints of lager a day!


If I’m drunk I can pot like Jimmy White if I’m sober the wife can beat me.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> If I’m drunk I can pot like Jimmy White if I’m sober the wife can beat me.


I found that the window in which I could actually pot was about 1/4 pint or 5 minutes, whichever was the shorter! (Similar problem with darts. I once played a fantastic game in a pub match - 180, 140, 140 and a 3-dart finish. 1 pint later I was actually missing the board!)


----------



## Adam4868 (28 Dec 2017)

The last thing you want is a shaky shooter !


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

ColinJ said:


> I found that the window in which I could actually pot was about 1/4 pint or 5 minutes, whichever was the shorter! (Similar problem with darts. I once played a fantastic game in a pub match - 180, 140, 140 and a 3-dart finish. 1 pint later I was actually missing the board!)


Same with Driving. 1 pint makes you better. After that it’s all down hill. I remember in the 90’s people used to say five and drive


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> Same with Driving. 1 pint makes you better. After that it’s all down hill. I remember in the 90’s people used to say five and drive


5's still fine.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

User said:


> You are of the Mungo Jerry generation.


Nah, 5's fine at anytime of the year; you can actually get away with a few more in summer


----------



## Milzy (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Nah, 5's fine at anytime of the year; you can actually get away with a few more in summer


lmao!! Some pillock was singing that last Friday.


----------



## Crackle (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Nah, 5's fine at anytime of the year; you can actually get away with a few more in summer


There is something of the Mungo Jerry about you now you mention it



I guess we're all waiting for the next installment of the Froome saga.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

Crackle said:


> There is something of the Mungo Jerry about you now you mention it
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we're all waiting for the next installment of the Froome saga.



Looks like the bloke at the start is trying to stop a "crackle pour" in his growler


----------



## Maenchi (28 Dec 2017)

Marmion said:


> Nah, 5's fine at anytime of the year; you can actually get away with a few more in summer


you are joking , ....right


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (28 Dec 2017)

Maenchi said:


> you are joking , ....right


Nah, you can get away with 7 or 8 in summer


----------



## rich p (28 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> the wife can beat me.


Each to his own


----------



## keithmac (29 Dec 2017)

ColinJ said:


> I found that the window in which I could actually pot was about 1/4 pint or 5 minutes, whichever was the shorter! (Similar problem with darts. I once played a fantastic game in a pub match - 180, 140, 140 and a 3-dart finish. 1 pint later I was actually missing the board!)



My snooker window is between 2 and 4 pints, above and below that it's just not happening.. Can sometimes eek it out to 5 pints with copious amounts of Pork Scratchings though.


----------



## Milzy (29 Dec 2017)

To get back on track, I think it will all be swept under the carpet. I’m looking forward to seeing Froome race again. I don’t believe he can win the TDF again now. Tom Dumoulin Is a good bet.


----------



## Slick (29 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> To get back on track, I think it will all be swept under the carpet. I’m looking forward to seeing Froome race again. I don’t believe he can win the TDF again now. Tom Dumoulin Is a good bet.


Why would it getting swept under the carpet affect the likelihood of him winning again or not?


----------



## Fonze (30 Dec 2017)

I read up a little on Salbutamol and although increases respitory therefore benefitting for breathing, how else would this help Froome on say a 5 hour section on the Tde F. ?
Bit like Ephedrine which gives benefits to short bursts, longer rides becomes less effective as it dehydrates the body rapidly.
Both seemingly recommended in the pursuit of weight loss , not something I'd see any rider of that calibre needing.


----------



## Slick (30 Dec 2017)

Fonze said:


> I read up a little on Salbutamol and although increases respitory therefore benefitting for breathing, how else would this help Froome on say a 5 hour section on the Tde F. ?
> Bit like Ephedrine which gives benefits to short bursts, longer rides becomes less effective as it dehydrates the body rapidly.
> Both seemingly recommended in the pursuit of weight loss , not something I'd see any rider of that calibre needing.


Your kidding? They are exactly the ones who would need help with weight loss, and if Salbutamol has no benefit, why take it?


----------



## gavintc (30 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> To get back on track, I think it will all be swept under the carpet. I’m looking forward to seeing Froome race again. I don’t believe he can win the TDF again now. Tom Dumoulin Is a good bet.


I disagree. I think the opportunity for Froome to race this year will be impacted by this.


----------



## Fonze (30 Dec 2017)

Slick said:


> Your kidding? They are exactly the ones who would need help with weight loss, and if Salbutamol has no benefit, why take it?



Kidding ?
No I'm not, not really.
If you train throughout the year doing the distances these guys do, compete and ride for 5 hours a day, Team Sky with all their nutritional expertise i honestly don't see you taking something to help lose weight.


----------



## Milzy (30 Dec 2017)

Slick said:


> Why would it getting swept under the carpet affect the likelihood of him winning again or not?





gavintc said:


> I disagree. I think the opportunity for Froome to race this year will be impacted by this.


It will be impacted to some degree. I just can’t see him winning it again. The team isn’t the same and other teams are more determined not to let them run away with it.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Dec 2017)

Fonze said:


> If you train throughout the year doing the distances these guys do, compete and ride for 5 hours a day, Team Sky with all their nutritional expertise i honestly don't see you taking something to help lose weight.


I have read books by lots of pro riders who mention how it is a constant struggle to get their weight down to a competitive level.

But ... once in top condition and mid-Tour, achieving weight-loss would _NOT _be an issue - riders would probably be struggling to eat enough to avoid getting _TOO _thin?


----------



## Slick (30 Dec 2017)

Fonze said:


> Kidding ?
> No I'm not, not really.
> If you train throughout the year doing the distances these guys do, compete and ride for 5 hours a day, Team Sky with all their nutritional expertise i honestly don't see you taking something to help lose weight.


Well they do. A number of them have described the strict diet they are on as the toughest part of being a pro rider. It's similar with jockeys, the lighter you are the harder it is to drop any weight. I watched a very interesting programme of how boxers manage it through rehydration, and they reckon that's why so many of them sustain brain injury.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Dec 2017)

That is *D*ehydration! 

I watched the same programme - scary stuff!


----------



## Slick (30 Dec 2017)

Milzy said:


> It will be impacted to some degree. I just can’t see him winning it again. The team isn’t the same and other teams are more determined not to let them run away with it.


I hope your wrong.


----------



## Slick (30 Dec 2017)

ColinJ said:


> That is *D*ehydration!
> 
> I watched the same programme - scary stuff!


Bloody autocorrect.

Yeah, very scary. I knew a potentially great boxer who first told me about hitting the weight limit. He reckoned the big secret to his success was his ability to drop down over night then get back up before the actual fight. He eventually died of his injuries sustained in the ring.


----------



## Slick (30 Dec 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> We're not talking about the kind of weight loss that we mortals are familar with: getting rid of the gut. We are talking about cutting every last ounce of fat while leaving the lean mass intact. This is where the pharmaceuticals come in handy.


Exactly.


----------



## mjr (2 Jan 2018)

DP said:


> In any case, I'm not sure there's very much more to be said right now until Sky come up with their explanation for the AAF.
> 
> I'd have thought Murdoch's deal with Disney has also got to be a worry for Sky.


Why worry? A good fairy story seems like it could help Team Sky right about now 

Anyway, I read a long Q&A over the last week at https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2017/dec/14/chris-froome-failed-drug-test-live-webchat which might interest some.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Jan 2018)

In May 1994, Induráin tested positive for salbutamol following the _Tour de L'Oise_ in France. Though the β2-adrenergic agonist, found in nasal inhalers, was on the controlled substances list of both the IOC and UCI, both organizations permitted sportsmen with asthma to use it. However, in France there was an outright ban on its use.[22] The IOC agreed with the UCI that Induráin would not be punished for using a drug banned outright in France because they accepted the salbutamol was contained in a nasal inhaler he had been using legitimately to aid his respiration. In Spain, the incident was interpreted as another case of the French attempting to hinder Induráin's domination of the sport.[23]
NB Another multiple Grand Tour (x7?) winner who suffered from asthma.


----------



## Shortandcrisp (3 Jan 2018)

Slick said:


> Bloody autocorrect.
> 
> Yeah, very scary. I knew a potentially great boxer who first told me about hitting the weight limit. He reckoned the big secret to his success was his ability to drop down over night then get back up before the actual fight. He eventually died of his injuries sustained in the ring.



Had first hand experience of this in a hotel gym in Chattanooga last week.

College kids using our hotel as a base for a wrestling competition. Went to the gym very late in the evening (around 11pm). There they all were. Thermostat turned up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Layered up in thick tracksuits and hoodies, sweating bucket loads over all the gym bikes, cross trainers and treadmills. Not a sports drink or humble glass of water in sight. Not a pleasant experience!


----------



## Slick (3 Jan 2018)

Shortandcrisp said:


> Had first hand experience of this in a hotel gym in Chattanooga last week.
> 
> College kids using our hotel as a base for a wrestling competition. Went to the gym very late in the evening (around 11pm). There they all were. Thermostat turned up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Layered up in thick tracksuits and hoodies, sweating bucket loads over all the gym bikes, cross trainers and treadmills. Not a sports drink or humble glass of water in sight. Not a pleasant experience!


Potentially extremely dangerous.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jan 2018)

Yeah, ouch. I'm not sure he's right about Sky overall, they've basically bought success and quite a few riders have gone to them and not done well but he is right about Froome ultimately being responsible and it's the first I've read of him taking his inhaler prior to the doping test; seems odd that.


----------



## rich p (4 Jan 2018)

I'm not sure why they keep asking Lemond for his opinions as he never has any more insight or insider knowledge than the rest of us.


----------



## hoopdriver (4 Jan 2018)

Indeed. He is long out of the game, and as you say most unlikely to be any better informed than any other punter out there.


----------



## grellboy (4 Jan 2018)

Further to Lemons reference a few posts back, that's the second article I have read tonight suggesting Froome will claim to have exceeded limit due to post race consumption so that he wouldn't cough during tv interviews. Apart from the fact that this seems a defence that is very unlikely to succeed, does anyone know of the provenance of this rumour?


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jan 2018)

grellboy said:


> Further to Lemons reference a few posts back, that's the second article I have read tonight suggesting Froome will claim to have exceeded limit due to post race consumption so that he wouldn't cough during tv interviews. Apart from the fact that this seems a defence that is very unlikely to succeed, does anyone know of the provenance of this rumour?


I haven't read the rumour but I have several times seen him interviewed after a hard stage when he was coughing a lot.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Jan 2018)

Just an aside, but I thought exercise induced asthma was bollocks until I realised I had it.

Coughing all day and coughing myself to sleep after a run this lunchtime .


----------



## jowwy (5 Jan 2018)

In all the races i have seen, as soon as the race leader crosses the line, they take them straight into a private tent, take urine samples and change well before TV interviews take place...........so i think that stance is b*******s


----------



## mjr (5 Jan 2018)

jowwy said:


> In all the races i have seen, as soon as the race leader crosses the line, they take them straight into a private tent, take urine samples and change well before TV interviews take place...........so i think that stance is b*******s


I think sometimes they get a doping control officer staying in sight of them until they give samples, after the interviews and podium protocol especially if the stage was slower than forecast and the TV time is running out.

I don't know what happened that day and I'd be surprised it could show up in urine so quickly... but we don't know if this is the defence anyway!


----------



## Sharky (5 Jan 2018)

jowwy said:


> In all the races i have seen, as soon as the race leader crosses the line, they take them straight into a private tent, take urine samples and change well before TV interviews take place...........so i think that stance is b*******s


Wasn't there a case of a rider smuggling in somebody else's urine. The testers could not find any evidence of drugs, but told him he was pregnant.


----------



## Slick (5 Jan 2018)

Sharky said:


> Wasn't there a case of a rider smuggling in somebody else's urine. The testers could not find any evidence of drugs, but told him he was pregnant.


A few stories of different ones including a cyclist but who knows? 

https://www.snopes.com/pregnant/drugtest.asp


----------



## Slick (5 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> As far as I remember it originated in a Times article from David Walsh. As Walsh is known to be unnaturally close to Sky and employed by News International it could be considered to be a Sky statement by proxy. As it's paywalled the nearest I can find is this.
> _“That evening at the finish (of stage 18), wanting to show he was healthy, he took two or three puffs from his inhaler hoping he would cough less or not at all through the post-race interview,” Walsh claims.
> _​In other news, Dick Pound opens up the prospect of the entertainment lasting even longer ... This one could run and run.
> http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/r...snt-impose-a-ban-says-former-president-364533


It's like they all want in on the action.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2018)

It seems likely to go to CAS anyway this one, too much at stake and Froome and Sky have the money to take it all the way.


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2018)

I know it's the silly season but I wish they'd stop interviewing 'experts' with nothing further to add to what's already been said. 
Or if they're going to speculate they could at least come up with some alien conspiracy defence.


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Jan 2018)

rich p said:


> I know it's the silly season but I wish they'd stop interviewing 'experts' with nothing further to add to what's already been said.
> Or if they're going to speculate they could at least come up with some alien conspiracy defence.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/richie-porte-flabbergasted-by-chris-froome-salbutamol-situation/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/richie-porte-flabbergasted-by-chris-froome-salbutamol-situation/
Just for you rich p heres Richie Porte who's flabbergasted at his best mate,(well i was till he fecked me in the dauphine last year !)


----------



## ColinJ (5 Jan 2018)

mjr said:


> I don't know what happened that day and I'd be surprised it could show up in urine so quickly... but we don't know if this is the defence anyway!


I can smell coffee in my urine less than 20 minutes after drinking the coffee, which does surprise me, but it shows that chemicals can get in there pretty quickly!


----------



## Slick (5 Jan 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I can smell coffee in my urine less than 20 minutes after drinking the coffee, which does surprise me, but it shows that chemicals can get in there pretty quickly!


Sugar puffs.


----------



## mjr (5 Jan 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I can smell coffee in my urine less than 20 minutes after drinking the coffee, which does surprise me, but it shows that chemicals can get in there pretty quickly!


Are you sure they're filling your coffee machine with water?


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Jan 2018)

Have some asparagus at dinner. Five minutes later you can smell it in your pee.


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Jan 2018)

I hold my nose when pi$$ing !


----------



## ColinJ (5 Jan 2018)

mjr said:


> Are you sure they're filling your coffee machine with water?


I make it myself; lots of coffee, some water!



hoopdriver said:


> Have some asparagus at dinner. Five minutes later you can smell it in your pee.


That was another example that I was thinking of!



Adam4868 said:


> I hold my nose when pi$$ing !


Poor aim?


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Jan 2018)

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/
If you can be bothered with any more.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/
> If you can be bothered with any more.


I can't be bothered with Tucker.


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Jan 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> I hold my nose when pi$$ing !


Don’t your shoes get messy?


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2018)

Crackle said:


> I can't be bothered with Tucker.


Tucker is a tit


----------



## Maenchi (6 Jan 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/
> If you can be bothered with any more.


thanks for posting this long and comprehensive article it explains things I wanted to know,  (by the way who's tucker ?)


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2018)

Maenchi said:


> thanks for posting this long and comprehensive article it explains things I wanted to know,  (by the way who's tucker ?)


Someone who writes his conclusion first and then goes back and picks the science and 'facts' to support it.


----------



## Adam4868 (6 Jan 2018)

Maenchi said:


> thanks for posting this long and comprehensive article it explains things I wanted to know,  (by the way who's tucker ?)


Too be honest a friend sent me the link,im not really familiar with Tucker myself.A few interesting points though ? Most things i read by "experts" on Froome I take with a pinch of salt.Im optimistic that it'll come good in the end,justice will prevail blah blah...I hope should I say.


----------



## rich p (6 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I find Tucker is always worth a read.


A lot of people think that he used to be worth a read but has gone a bit'clinic' in recent years.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> There was one post, year before last, when he lost it a bit and upset a lot of Froome fans, but that aside I've not found anything wrong with his stuff. Even the offending piece seemed ok to me - if you read it carefully.


Speaks a man so hard he can read The Clinic and still sound normal when he posts.


----------



## Bollo (10 Jan 2018)

Julie Harrington completely misses the point....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...d-drugs-test-british-cycling-julie-harrington


----------



## Slick (10 Jan 2018)

Bollo said:


> Julie Harrington completely misses the point....
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...d-drugs-test-british-cycling-julie-harrington




“That’s a blow to cycling’s reputation, the individual athlete’s reputation. You only need to look at Twitter feeds and the comments below articles and people will make up their own mind based on not having the full evidence, which is a shame.

“I would rather that information hadn’t been leaked and we were able to deal either with a situation where an athlete is banned and then as a national governing body it’s pretty clear what our position is. Or, alternatively, where the athlete was able to prove a real reason for that AAF and carry on with their careers as normal.”


I'm not so sure she hasn't got a point.  Everyone deserves the chance to prepare a robust defence but in any walk of life, failing to deal with a situation in a timely manner almost always makes it worse.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (10 Jan 2018)

Slick said:


> I'm not so sure she hasn't got a point. Everyone deserves the chance to prepare a robust defence but in any walk of life, failing to deal with a situation in a timely manner almost always makes it worse.


They cannae even present a robust defence when given time, Jiffy Bag-gate being a good example and this latest one adds to the "no defence so stay silent and point fingers at the people reporting it" approach. I bet SirDave is working out a hand signal routine for his next BBC "grilling"...


----------



## Slick (10 Jan 2018)

Marmion said:


> They cannae even present a robust defence when given time, Jiffy Bag-gate being a good example and this latest one adds to the "no defence so stay silent and point fingers at the people reporting it" approach. I bet SirDave is working out a hand signal routine for his next BBC "grilling"...


Yeah true, which I find very disappointing. I was trying to be fair without pre-judging anything, but that becomes more difficult with each passing day.


----------



## Bollo (11 Jan 2018)

Slick said:


> “That’s a blow to cycling’s reputation, the individual athlete’s reputation. You only need to look at Twitter feeds and the comments below articles and people will make up their own mind based on not having the full evidence, which is a shame.
> 
> “I would rather that information hadn’t been leaked and we were able to deal either with a situation where an athlete is banned and then as a national governing body it’s pretty clear what our position is. Or, alternatively, where the athlete was able to prove a real reason for that AAF and carry on with their careers as normal.”
> 
> ...


I was a bit cryptic in the last post, but she seems to be whinging about not being able to control the narrative, rather than genuine concern about Sky and Froome's behaviour. There was a gap of, what, 3-4 months between the test and the findings being leaked? I'm surprised and impressed the lid stayed on that long.


----------



## mjr (11 Jan 2018)

Bollo said:


> I was a bit cryptic in the last post, but she seems to be whinging about not being able to control the narrative, rather than genuine concern about Sky and Froome's behaviour. There was a gap of, what, 3-4 months between the test and the findings being leaked? I'm surprised and impressed the lid stayed on that long.


So is anyone else now wondering what doping narratives football (where JH came from) are controlling?


----------



## Adam4868 (12 Jan 2018)

Even more breaking news.....Chris falls off bike !
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-crashes-as-he-racks-up-the-kilometres-in-south-africa/


----------



## roadrash (12 Jan 2018)

good of them to mention me in the article


----------



## rich p (12 Jan 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> Even more breaking news.....Chris falls off bike !
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froome-crashes-as-he-racks-up-the-kilometres-in-south-africa/


Rub a bit of Salbutomol on it and he'll be back riding in 9 months or so...


----------



## BalkanExpress (12 Jan 2018)

mjr said:


> So is anyone else now wondering what doping narratives football (where JH came from) are controlling?



Up and coming young star picks up a season long injury = ban for recreational drugs ...allegedly


----------



## Adam4868 (12 Jan 2018)

BalkanExpress said:


> Up and coming young star picks up a season long injury = ban for recreational drugs ...allegedly


There is no doping in football though.......


----------



## Bollo (13 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Quite what is taking all this time isn't clear. Are Sky deliberately dragging their feet? I also read somewhere (can't remember where) that Froome is waiting to be called to Lausanne for PK tests, and the ball is actually in the prosecution's court (LADS/WADA/whoever it its).


My theory (based on feck-all) is that Sky are trying to present this as a procedural or administrative issue rather than a full-bore doping case - "it's paperwork and nothing more". It kinda worked for Wiggo so lets go with it again. The press and public's attention span is limited, so slowing things down effectively dilutes the story.

I thought that the burden of proof was firmly in Sky/Froome's court now - it's up to them to show that Froome's physiology was playing silly-buggers, rather than the authorities proving that he reacted normally to an excessive dose. It'll end up in CAS whatever.


----------



## mjr (16 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Inrng reporting that Froome defence will blame his kidneys. Linked article in French and also behind in paywall
> 
> View: https://twitter.com/inrng/status/953128018775609344



I wonder if we're going back to bilharzia again, as that's described as sometimes damaging kidneys, such as at https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/schistosomiasis/


----------



## Maenchi (16 Jan 2018)

Currently reading Chris Froomes biography The Climb, in the book he goes on at length about doping and being shocked early in his career when discovering various other cyclists were doping and seems driven to be clean, his 'extras' at first included sprouting mung beans carried around in his suitcase and put on the windowsill of hotels to sprout he'd been told sprouting veg helped with recovery. With Barloworld they had a very loose training structure, like you need to train more,so do some. Then when he joined team Sky it was the total package including random testing by them, such as due to being tracked all day, when out for a meal he gets a phone call saying we are coming to check your pee and blood. From reading his book he really does not seem like doping would be his thing,ever...


----------



## Maenchi (16 Jan 2018)

.....nah.....get yourself a copy it's worth a read, funny informative and entertaining.


----------



## FishFright (16 Jan 2018)

Maenchi said:


> Currently reading Chris Froomes biography The Climb, in the book he goes on at length about doping and being shocked early in his career when discovering various other cyclists were doping and seems driven to be clean, his 'extras' at first included sprouting mung beans carried around in his suitcase and put on the windowsill of hotels to sprout he'd been told sprouting veg helped with recovery. With Barloworld they had a very loose training structure, like you need to train more,so do some. Then when he joined team Sky it was the total package including random testing by them, such as due to being tracked all day, when out for a meal he gets a phone call saying we are coming to check your pee and blood. From reading his book he really does not seem like doping would be his thing,ever...



I remember reading Armstrong books back in the day 'proving' how clean he was too.

And yes I wanted it to be true .....


----------



## Maenchi (16 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> A ghostwritten sports autobiog? ... that would be surprising. But it has probably happened.
> 
> An autobiog of a Sky rider ghostwritten by David Walsh? If "Inside Team Sky" is anything to go by, that would be very surprising.
> 
> But I've not read it so I'm not really in a position to comment.


I took to reading Chris Froome's book and Geraint Thomas' book due to my missis finding them in a local charity shop.


----------



## booze and cake (16 Jan 2018)

I've no idea on the proof required, it seems like Sky are clutching at straws now. How sickly are these cyclists? Its amazing they manage to leave the house.


----------



## hoopdriver (16 Jan 2018)

booze and cake said:


> I've no idea on the proof required, it seems like Sky are clutching at straws now. How sickly are these cyclists? Its amazing they manage to leave the house.


They have carbon fibre Zimmer frames.


----------



## mjr (16 Jan 2018)

FishFright said:


> I remember reading Armstrong books back in the day 'proving' how clean he was too.
> 
> And yes I wanted it to be true .....


I don't remember that book. IIRC "It's not about the bike" protested much but proved little and even some of that turned out to be lies.


----------



## hoopdriver (16 Jan 2018)

mjr said:


> I don't remember that book. IIRC "It's not about the bike" protested much but proved little and even some of that turned out to be lies.


Yes, it generated much heat, but shed little light...


----------



## Bollo (16 Jan 2018)

Ex-rider/doper has opinion. Adds nowt.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/16/chris-froome-end-of-team-sky-floyd-landis-cycling


----------



## Slick (16 Jan 2018)

Bollo said:


> Ex-rider/doper has opinion. Adds nowt.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/16/chris-froome-end-of-team-sky-floyd-landis-cycling


Obviously some people will be interested on what he has to say, but I shut it down after reading the first line.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jan 2018)

Landis makes some valid points, always good to keep it in the news rather than let it fade away as SKY want


----------



## Bollo (16 Jan 2018)

Marmion said:


> Landis makes some valid points, always good to keep it in the news rather than let it fade away as SKY want


I agree but the same points could have been made by anyone. It just felt like Floyd wanted a bit of publicity for his blow farm. Maybe cycling's made me cynical.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (16 Jan 2018)

Bollo said:


> I agree but the same points could have been made by anyone. It just felt like Floyd wanted a bit of publicity for his blow farm. Maybe cycling's made me cynical.


I doubt the story would have been run if I'd said it tho, under the headline "fat lazy nobber says something"


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Jan 2018)

Sky are currently trawling hospitals looking for their next grand tour winner.


----------



## hoopdriver (16 Jan 2018)

Bollo said:


> I agree but the same points could have been made by anyone. It just felt like Floyd wanted a bit of publicity for his blow farm. Maybe cycling's made me cynical.


It’s weed not blow.


----------



## FishFright (16 Jan 2018)

mjr said:


> I don't remember that book. IIRC "It's not about the bike" protested much but proved little and even some of that turned out to be lies.



It's a good job you spotted the irony before you posted that.


----------



## hoopdriver (16 Jan 2018)

FishFright said:


> It's a good job you spotted the irony before you posted that.


Irony - it’s good for the blood and it doesn’t show up in a urine test.


----------



## nickyboy (17 Jan 2018)

booze and cake said:


> I've no idea on the proof required, it seems like Sky are clutching at straws now. How sickly are these cyclists? Its amazing they manage to leave the house.



Presumably Froome has been tested post-race dozens of times in recent years (doesn't the race leader automatically get tested?). First time there has been an adverse reading. And no adverse reading in stages if the same race after the adverse

So this "kidney issue" must be a total one-off? Never been experienced before that day, never experienced after that day. Or....there is no kidney issue and Sky mucked up their Salbutomol dosing in a pressured situation and gave him too much in error

You pays your money and you takes your choice


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jan 2018)

Lets not forget that this was leaked to the press, so we don’t know how many times it’s happened before and by which riders.

I find it hard to believe that it’s down to over zealous use of a pump type inhaler, due to the amounts in question, so that just leaves tablet or injection forms. Both of these go against Sky’s ethos.

It’s not good, whatever the outcome.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2018)

bpsmith said:


> I find it hard to believe that it’s down to over zealous use of a pump type inhaler, due to the amounts in question, so that just leaves tablet or injection forms.


Does it? Isn't overoptimisation of a nebuliser a possibility?

ETA: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/27928


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I think use of nebuliser requires a TUE. So he'd be in more trouble if that were the case.
> 
> Or could it be that just the dose delivered and not the nebuliser itself is what would require the TUE ref:
> _Nebulizers are by definition inhalation devices and thus not prohibited as a method. However, the inhalation of salbutamol in doses recommended by the manufacturer is most likely to result in urinary levels of salbutamol exceeding the urinary threshold of 1,000 ng/ml and thus,* the use of salbutamol with a nebulizer requires a TUE.*_​


I note that the date in the URL is December 2017, after Froome's adverse analytical finding. I didn't find the previous version on the WADA site. I wonder if that's changed recently?

Also, what about doses below that recommended by the manufacturer? And why speculate about injections which are explicitly prohibited in all cases rather than the more ambiguous idea of inhaler optimisation? Maybe it wasn't a nebuliser but some sort of marginally-gained pump inhaler. We simply don't know yet but with all the interest, I suspect it'll come out in time.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Jan 2018)

How about a good old conspiracy theory ...? For example, that some evil third party tampered with the inhaler or the urine samples! 

The '_They can't beat me on the bike so they nobbled me!_' defence.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2018)

ColinJ said:


> How about a good old conspiracy theory ...? For example, that some evil third party tampered with the inhaler or the urine samples!
> 
> The '_They can't beat me on the bike so they nobbled me!_' defence.


I'd really hope that they keep his old inhalers at least going back a few weeks so when told on 20th or whatever it was, they still had the one from the 7th... but given what we've heard about Sky's medical record-keeping, there's probably not a chance. As I understand it, the burden of proof here is now on Froome, so even if it's the lower "balance of probabilities" standard (aka more likely than not) often used in civil courts, if they can't robustly produce the tampered inhaler or a reasonably-convincing stack of other suitably-damaged old inhalers, I wouldn't expect that defence to avoid a ban.

And no, he's still British. Even when he was riding for Kenya (until 2008?), he was a British citizen, wasn't he? But it made sense as the odds of an near-unknown young African-based Brit being selected for the national squad at that time were probably astronomical, as what I read about Team GB back then suggests selection was partly about who knew/liked you and not solely your work ethic, ability or results.


----------



## themosquitoking (17 Jan 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Give it time. He'll be "Kenyan cyclist Chris Froome" soon enough if things don't go too well.  The same way Andy Murray seems to swing between being Scottish and British depending on whether he's winning.
> 
> Edit: Being serious for a minute (which was never my intention) he became a British citizen in 2008 and started riding on a British licence in 2010.


Citizen suggests an element of residency.


----------



## Rooster1 (29 Jan 2018)

They repeated the programme last night.

A good watch, IMO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09glhsh/britains-cycling-superheroes-the-price-of-success


----------



## Slick (29 Jan 2018)

Rooster1 said:


> They repeated the programme last night.
> 
> A good watch, IMO
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09glhsh/britains-cycling-superheroes-the-price-of-success


I watched it again, still interesting.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Jan 2018)

He's doing loads of riding in SA at the moment. My view is that he's replicating the training load of the Vuelta and is going to be tested by the UCI very shortly.


----------



## Bollo (30 Jan 2018)

If you don’t care for Google’s word arrange foreign attempt Froome say yes to deal, then here’s the Guardian report....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/30/chris-froome-plea-bargain-drug-test-untrue-sky


----------



## hoopdriver (31 Jan 2018)

400bhp said:


> He's doing loads of riding in SA at the moment. My view is that he's replicating the training load of the Vuelta and is going to be tested by the UCI very shortly.


That might not be a bad guess. That ride he posted on Sunday - 170 miles averaging almost 28mph would be a pretty phenomenal training ride this early in the season - so far from the Giro, his stated goal. If that’s just a hard training ride, in January, where is he planning on going from there? When it comes time to peak. Doing 200 mile rides at 30mph?


----------



## Siclo (31 Jan 2018)

Vegni is not a happy bunny and essentially wants the UCI to certificate Froome's eligibility to race the Giro, giving a guarantee there will be no repeat of the Contador situation. This is going to get messy, there's a small army of lawyers somewhere salivating.


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Feb 2018)

Well, by golly, they're _still_ not happy....


----------



## lazybloke (2 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Giro organisers not happy
> http://www.velonews.com/2018/02/news/giro-director-leans-uci-guidance-froome-case_456066
> 
> Edit, oops just two days after @Siclo posted exactly the same. Duh



It's disappointing that Velonews refer to a "salbutamol _scandal_", and that some on here are joining the bandwagon to prejudge the appeal process. 


What is the time limit for the appeal anyway? 
Vegni is absolutely right to want clarity before May; can you imagine the hostility from the crowds if CF races whilst still under suspicion? 

To stand any chance of silencing the naysayers CF needs to provide an *emphatic *proof; a tough ask.


----------



## Slick (2 Feb 2018)

lazybloke said:


> It's disappointing that Velonews refer to a "salbutamol _scandal_", and that some on here are joining the bandwagon to prejudge the appeal process.
> 
> 
> What is the time limit for the appeal anyway?
> ...


Do you think he will ever silence the naysayers, given all that's gone on? Genuine question, as I'm still a bit of a fan but I'll be bitterly disappointed should he be found guilty.


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Feb 2018)

The only way there will be any clarity is if the charges are dropped and Froome cleared. Any other outcome will result in appeals and a long wrangling process which will continue well after the Giro and throw the whole thing into doubt for months. Either Froome is cleared and absolved or whatever, or the race will be run in the shadow of this thing. There isn't any other outcome that I can see.


----------



## mjr (2 Feb 2018)

lazybloke said:


> What is the time limit for the appeal anyway?
> Vegni is absolutely right to want clarity before May; can you imagine the hostility from the crowds if CF races whilst still under suspicion?


I think past known cases suggest appeals can take up to a year.

Vegni is acting correctly in his own interests but why should CF be punished for UCI's incompetence in keeping this confidential until there's a ruling?


----------



## Slick (2 Feb 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> The only way there will be any clarity is if the charges are dropped and Froome cleared. Any other outcome will result in appeals and a long wrangling process which will continue well after the Giro and throw the whole thing into doubt for months. Either Froome is cleared and absolved or whatever, or the race will be run in the shadow of this thing. There isn't any other outcome that I can see.


I'm not sure even that will close down the doubters.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Feb 2018)

Slick said:


> Do you think he will ever silence the naysayers, given all that's gone on? Genuine question, as I'm still a bit of a fan but I'll be bitterly disappointed should he be found guilty.


The damage is done I think, unfortunately it's going to take some sort of extraordinary finding to wriggle (at best) out of it.For me as a massive Froome fan it's a shame,I genuinely don't believe he knowingly went out to cheat the system.Id take more of a guess somebody else fecked up.But I suppose that's because I like him and you never want to see the bad !


----------



## Slick (2 Feb 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> The damage is done I think, unfortunately it's going to take some sort of extraordinary finding to wriggle (at best) out of it.For me as a massive Froome fan it's a shame,I genuinely don't believe he knowingly went out to cheat the system.Id take more of a guess somebody else fecked up.But I suppose that's because I like him and you never want to see the bad !


That's pretty much how I see it. I just can't see it ending well no matter the findings.


----------



## mjr (2 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> @mjr you refer to the incompetence of the UCI in allowing the leak. Do you know for certain it came from the UCI, and that it was caused my incompetence? Not from WADA or some associated body, or even someone within Sky? It probably was the UCI but we don't _know _do we?


I'm taking the leak itself as the incompetence and regarding the UCI as accountable as the lead body that's also responsible for the sport's relationships with WADA and Sky. If the leak is found to have been from Sky, for example, then I expect UCI to penalise Sky. I really hope the leak hasn't come from WADA as I wouldn't want us to go back to the days of UCI and WADA facing off.


----------



## mjr (2 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I can't see how it can be possible that he'll escape a sanction in the end - pharmacokinetic miracle notwithstanding - [...]


Oh and back to this: I think I've mentioned earlier that I don't think it would be a miracle that a long-term bilharzia sufferer's organs might process salbutamol strangely as the disease can mess them up. Does anyone know if it's ever been studied before? Seems like a rather niche question.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> Oh and back to this: I think I've mentioned earlier that I don't think it would be a miracle that a long-term bilharzia sufferer's organs might process salbutamol strangely as the disease can mess them up. Does anyone know if it's ever been studied before? Seems like a rather niche question.


No,but I'd take a bet that it's being studied now !


----------



## lazybloke (2 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> Oh and back to this: I think I've mentioned earlier that I don't think it would be a miracle that a long-term bilharzia sufferer's organs might process salbutamol strangely as the disease can mess them up. Does anyone know if it's ever been studied before? Seems like a rather niche question.



Well bilharzia is associated with damage to liver and kidneys.
I'm not in the medical profession but my daughter went through an episode of renal failure so I have absorbed some knowledge of how the kidneys work. Anyone who's been on a renal ward will have seen urine darker than coca cola, but it's not plausible to suggest CF's kidneys are in that state! 

However, it's very plausible that his kidneys are damaged - in the form of scarring to the glomerulus. This would impair kidney function to some degree, but this could only be quantified with a GFR test.
The GFR score is a direct measurement of the effectiveness of the kidneys. The score declines significantly over a lifetime, and also response to environmental conditions including different foods and medications (!). I would imagine the extreme conditions in a pro bike race to cause swings in GFR too, maybe enough to cause an _apparent_ overdose.


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Feb 2018)

I can believe all that, but then we still get back to the troubling issue of this one-off extraordinarily high reading - he was using the same kidneys every day, of the Vuelta and every other race. Very odd any way you slice it.

That said, I am certain this is a result of a screw up somewhere rather than a deliberate attempt to cheat. There is simply no logic for it to be anything else.


----------



## lazybloke (2 Feb 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> I can believe all that, but then we still get back to the troubling issue of this one-off extraordinarily high reading - he was using the same kidneys every day, of the Vuelta and every other race. Very odd any way you slice it.
> 
> That said, I am certain this is a result of a screw up somewhere rather than a deliberate attempt to cheat. There is simply no logic for it to be anything else.


He'd have to prove a transient swing in his renal function. Detailed further analysis of the samples might do this.
For example:
- what about other constituents of the urine - if they were also double expected, then he should be cleared with an immediate apology!
- or a slightly different question, how are samples adjusted to account for dehydration? 
- what about haematuria and proteinuria in the samples?- this would prove renal abnormality on that very day
- did the AAF only measure the salbutamol, or the metabolites too. Do the relative proportions support a claim of 'physiological anomaly' ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> How true this is I don't know, but ...
> 
> _The UCI is reportedly considering giving four-time Tour de France champion a provisional ban following his adverse analytical finding at last year’s Vuelta for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug, salbutamol._
> http://road.cc/content/news/236599-uci-reportedly-considering-giving-chris-froome-provisional-ban



Here's what they should do:


----------



## Crackle (2 Feb 2018)

He'll probably win the boat though.


----------



## Bollo (4 Feb 2018)

Crackle said:


> He'll probably win the boat though.


Bertie could have used the set of steak knives.


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Feb 2018)

View: https://twitter.com/TeamSky/status/960454743847038976?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E0


----------



## Crackle (5 Feb 2018)

User3094 said:


>



Uk cycling expert is pure gold sometimes.


----------



## jowwy (5 Feb 2018)

Seems from those twitter responses that there are quite a lot of people against him riding while the case is still ongoing


----------



## bpsmith (5 Feb 2018)

Innocent until proven guilty.

In saying that, most professions would suspend you whilst investigations are made.


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Feb 2018)

bpsmith said:


> Innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> In saying that, most professions would suspend you whilst investigations are made.


No one has suspended Donald Trump


----------



## bpsmith (5 Feb 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> No one has suspended Donald Trump


True. Perhaps he’s just misunderstood?


----------



## mjr (5 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> In which case (as I understand it) by not going for a voluntary suspension even if he gets a teeny tiny ban, it can not be retrospective and it will result in him forfeiting all his wins since the test.
> 
> So this would seem to be is a risky move, as well as one that seems to be unpopular with the authorities, with race organisers and with at least a few in the peloton.


And yet, the authorities still permit it, so don't really have any room to criticise it.

I suspect whether or not you prejudge it or what your prejudice is, almost everyone can agree that it is indeed an utter farking mess.

(Edited to undo an autocorrect.)


----------



## roadrash (5 Feb 2018)

At least its consistently inconsistent


----------



## Bollo (6 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Inrng summary. Thorough as usual, and lots of details on the procedures and so forth.
> 
> http://inrng.com/2018/02/froome-quently-asked-questions/#more-32865
> 
> Confirms that it is indeed, a mess.


And at the other end of the thoroughness spectrum, Sirdave “speaks”...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/06/dave-brailsford-chris-froome-team-sky


----------



## Crackle (12 Feb 2018)

I presume we've all read this. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...id-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/

If you haven't, do so. It lifts a bit more of the lid on Sky's medical procedures, there's some grudgery and score settling going on and probably an element of needing some publicity for his new team, but........


----------



## booze and cake (12 Feb 2018)

LOL so when Sky said they had a no needles policy were they referring to knitting? It seems needles are totally integral to their way or working, what a shambles, burn them all.


----------



## roadrash (12 Feb 2018)

Is this a book about sky's doping policy..


----------



## booze and cake (12 Feb 2018)

That's the problem with Sky and the UCI, there's too many grey areas.

Brad did say this in his book 'My time'

“British Cycling have always had a no-needle policy, it’s been a mainstay of theirs; so it was something I grew up with as a bike rider. In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo...I’ve never had an injection, apart from I’ve had my vaccinations, and on occasion I’ve been put on a drip, when I’ve come down with diarrhoea or something or have been severely dehydrated.”

And then following the Russia hack/leak it was refined to "....that only referred to illegal injections". Call me picky but no needles means no needles to me, that's black and white, but when challenged Sky cry its grey not black and white.....

The bit that jumps out above is Brad saying "....and on occasion I've been put on a drip, when I've come down with diarrhoea or something (what the hell is something exactly?), or have been severely dehydrated" If Sky are using IV for recovery, that is not on occasion, that's systematic, routine I would say, and is yet another example of them saying one thing and doing something else entirely.


----------



## Adam4868 (12 Feb 2018)

Nothing much new,Shock horror sky did what a lot of other teams were doing with the 'recovery' needles.There mistake was to keep telling everyone they were whiter than white ! 
Still doesn't cast any new light on Froome,more WTF was he doing !


----------



## Crackle (12 Feb 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> Nothing much new,Shock horror sky did what a lot of other teams were doing with the 'recovery' needles.There mistake was to keep telling everyone they were whiter than white !
> Still doesn't cast any new light on Froome,more WTF was he doing !


It kinda does, not directly but the implication is there. He says at one point that they should have just got a TUE for Froome and not doubled his dose. I suspect that TUE's are persona non-grata at the moment and in trying to avoid that particular hot topic they've well and truly dumped themselves in it.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Feb 2018)




----------



## rich p (12 Feb 2018)

Another version of the same facts.
Can't someone come up with a revelation we haven't already discussed ad nauseam?


----------



## bpsmith (12 Feb 2018)

rich p said:


> Another version of the same facts.
> Can't someone come up with a revelation we haven't already discussed ad nauseam?


Wiggins and Froome are totally clean.

That would be a revelation right now?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (12 Feb 2018)

rich p said:


> Another version of the same facts.
> Can't someone come up with a revelation we haven't already discussed ad nauseam?


It's what SirDave wants; no news = people think "not that again..." We are the CC crusaders for mentioning the same old shite over and over and viewing it as news


----------



## Crackle (12 Feb 2018)

Marmion said:


> View attachment 395582


I'll put you down for the new Team Sky kit then.


----------



## Adam4868 (12 Feb 2018)




----------



## User169 (21 Feb 2018)

Wiggo says young riders shouldn’t go to Sky and he’s gonna have his say on the UKAD enquiry very soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/21/bradley-wiggins-young-cyclists-team-sky-will-ruin-you


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Feb 2018)

DP said:


> Wiggo says young riders shouldn’t go to Sky and he’s gonna have his say on the UKAD enquiry very soon.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/21/bradley-wiggins-young-cyclists-team-sky-will-ruin-you


Interesting Brad,im not really seeing the ruining of riders so far ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Feb 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> Interesting Brad,im not really seeing the ruining of riders so far ?


there's a lot


----------



## mjr (21 Feb 2018)

DP said:


> Wiggo says young riders shouldn’t go to Sky and he’s gonna have his say on the UKAD enquiry very soon.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/21/bradley-wiggins-young-cyclists-team-sky-will-ruin-you


It's a shame someone reputable doesn't start a new team for young British riders, isn't it?


----------



## Crackle (21 Feb 2018)

Take a deep breath Brad; oh you can't, hang on I'll get the Fluimucil.


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Feb 2018)

mjr said:


> It's a shame someone reputable doesn't start a new team for young British riders, isn't it?


Maybe a pharmaceutical company could sponsor one. Together with the company that makes Jiffy bags

There’s probably a few path labs that could use some publicity too.


----------



## Foghat (5 Mar 2018)

Glad to see the DCMS select committee saw through the Sky smokescreen and is prepared to formally denounce Wiggins's/Brailsford's/Sky's bull$h1t about 'medical need' for corticosteroid performance-enhancing rocket fuel.

Did we already know the select committee has this _'well-placed and respected source about Team Sky's medical policy between 2011 and 2013'_? It's the first I've heard of it. Has there been speculation as to who it is?

Did UKAD not give them a call too? The select committee must have considerable reason to believe the source to make these seemingly unequivocal accusations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/43281807


----------



## Beebo (5 Mar 2018)

Ouch.


Wiggins takes a bullet but Brailsford’s position seems untenable now, and will Sky pull sponsorship, the Murdoch owned Sun are pulling no punches.
Will Froome be able to survive this with investigations hanging over him?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

So they’re ready to damn based on absence of evidence either way?


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

I think what they are damning are the procedures that were followed, the deeply suspicious and frankly unbelievable lack of record keeping and carelessness as regards to drugs and medical records, the openness to abuse of the TUE protocols and Brailsford’s and Team Sky’s perceived willingness to to abuse it for a legal yet decidedly dodgy marginal gain


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> I think what they are damning are the procedures that were followed, the deeply suspicious and frankly unbelievable lack of record keeping and carelessness as regards to drugs and medical records, the openness to abuse of the TUE protocols and Brailsford’s and Team Sky’s perceived willingness to to abuse it for a legal yet decidedly dodgy marginal gain



I know how bad the sport is, but that still amounts to nothing - if what they did is within the rules, it’s within the rules. The only accusation with any meat on it is that an “ethical line was crossed”. That’s a heap of crap statement anyway, but if the rules are not enforcing the ethics of the sport, the rules need to be changed.

There is so much cheating in sport, pro and amateur, to damn people on the basis that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ is just going to make things worse.


----------



## roadrash (5 Mar 2018)

But in damning testimony, an anonymous but "well-placed and respected source" tells the committee that Wiggins and other riders were using corticosteroids before the 2012 season "beyond the requirement for any TUE".

its like a fekin primary school playground, ...."somebody told me something, but I'm not telling you who it was" surely anybody can come out with crap like that..., if you've something to say ,then stand up and say it instead of this cloak and dagger shyte.

whether or not wiggins cheated , how the feck can anyone say...you cheated within the rules...


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> I know how bad the sport is, but that still amounts to nothing - if what they did is within the rules, it’s within the rules. The only accusation with any meat on it is that an “ethical line was crossed”. That’s a heap of crap statement anyway, but if the rules are not enforcing the ethics of the sport, the rules need to be changed.
> 
> There is so much cheating in sport, pro and amateur, to damn people on the basis that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ is just going to make things worse.


I agree. I think there is a sense of vindictiveness here. The committee knows damn well they were lied to and fed a lot of blatant BS which they were obliged to swallow because they couldn't _prove _otherwise. It doesn't mean they had to like it though, and this is a bit of payback.


----------



## Illaveago (5 Mar 2018)

What I would like to know is if a rider was to take a placebo which was known to contain no performance enhancing chemicals, yet improve the cyclist's performance , would that be ethically wrong ?


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> What I would like to know is if a rider was to take a placebo which was known to contain no performance enhancing chemicals, yet improve the cyclist's performance , would that be ethically wrong ?



Hah - interesting. Ethically, there is still the intent to cheat...


----------



## Illaveago (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Homeopathic doping. Chiropractic soigneurs. Crystals to enhance climbing aurora.


Don't forget lucky underwear .


----------



## Bobby Mhor (5 Mar 2018)

Athletics and other sports must be sitting back thanking Sky for taking all the heat
(admittedly I haven't read most it)


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

It would make for a fascinating experiment. Find a deeply dodgy cyclist - which would be about as hard as finding a hooker in Vegas - inject him with some saline solution which he has been told is a super potent performance enhancer, latest high-tech drug, utterly undetectable but dynamite in liquid form when it comes to firing up the muscles and wattage. I wonder what would happen? And if he rode himself into a heart attack winning a race by a country mile would you be guilty of murder, manslaughter or simple immortality?


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

Illaveago said:


> Don't forget lucky underwear .


Beetroot shots.


----------



## KneesUp (5 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> Brad did say this in his book 'My time'
> 
> “British Cycling have always had a no-needle policy, it’s been a mainstay of theirs; so it was something I grew up with as a bike rider. In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo...I’ve never had an injection, apart from I’ve had my vaccinations, and on occasion I’ve been put on a drip, when I’ve come down with diarrhoea or something or have been severely dehydrated.”
> 
> And then following the Russia hack/leak it was refined to "....that only referred to illegal injections". Call me picky but no needles means no needles to me, that's black and white, but when challenged Sky cry its grey not black and white.....


I was thinking about that bit over breakfast this morning. Thanks for saving me the time of finding it. "In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo..." is an odd way to phrase it if you really mean "In British cycling culture, at the words ‘illegal injection’ or the suggestion of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo...




Beebo said:


> View attachment 398635
> 
> 
> Ouch.
> ...


Interesting that the Scum are attacking the team sponsored by their owner, as you say.


----------



## Crackle (5 Mar 2018)

The well respected source needs to be named. Perhaps it's Sutton, who knows but without us knowing who it is, it can't be given any real credence, though it does add to the whole rotting smell.

I also can't see Sky continuing, I think their numbers's up soon.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> The well respected source needs to be named. Perhaps it's Sutton, who knows but without us knowing who it is, it can't be given any real credence, though it does add to the whole rotting smell.


Would it be more or less credible if the source is an Australian who now coaches the Chinese team?



Crackle said:


> I also can't see Sky continuing, I think their numbers's up soon.


Nothing is impossible: the team that was Liberty Seguros still rides today IIRC and they were caught out far more obviously.


----------



## Crackle (5 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Would it be more or less credible if the source is an Australian who now coaches the Chinese team?


Well if it did turn out to be Sutton, it's believable. Right now it could be someone who wrote in from The Clinic, however, I suppose the committee say it's credible, which gives it a great deal more authenticity than a few blokes on the internet.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Mar 2018)

I find the reports of the report very underwhelming. It seems that the select committee could only offer conjecture and rumour and state that the teams crossed an 'ethical line' without defining what that line is. It seems there is no proof of rules being broken, just huge amounts of justified suspicion. What happened to innocent until proven guilty, or even the Scottish 'not proven'?


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Mar 2018)

Bobby Mhor said:


> Athletics and other sports must be sitting back thanking Sky for taking all the heat
> (admittedly I haven't read most it)


To be fair their was a bit on mo Farah on this morning's news....a bit I said.


----------



## Maenchi (5 Mar 2018)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081
from bbc sport 5/3/18


----------



## Bobby Mhor (5 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> To be fair their was a bit on mo Farah on this morning's news....a bit I said.


I've been out most of the morning, 
I'll go find catch-up, thanks.


----------



## FishFright (5 Mar 2018)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081

That is pretty harsh


----------



## rich p (5 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081
> 
> That is pretty harsh


Congrats on being the 3rd person to post that link


----------



## Daddy Pig (5 Mar 2018)

Once again MPs are able to make a statement based on some facts and a lot of unknown, where they can basically say what the hell they like and clutch at as many straws as they wish whilst being protected by statute law.  

Where does that leave those wrongly accused?

The other issue is that those reports are then deemed to be fact.... rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Adam4868 (5 Mar 2018)

MPs complaining about "ethics" who'd have thought.....


----------



## jowwy (5 Mar 2018)

are these the same MPs that broke their own ethics with the expense's scandal.............if it is then who's going to believe a word they say??

i for one aint going to trust an MP unless facts are stated and not just hear say from some "well known source"..........crossing an ethical line is not the same as breaking the rules......its as simple as that.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> i for one aint going to trust an MP unless facts are stated and not just hear say from some "well known source"..........crossing an ethical line is not the same as breaking the rules......its as simple as that.


I think taking aim at the rules, suggesting that the rules are somehow wrong, is an example of our esteemed legislators trying to justify making more legislation, taking control of the rules away from HSBCUKBC, UKAD, UK Sport, UCI et al and giving it to themselves.

Which I'm sure will be fine, as our legislators have clearly completed all their work and succeeded in providing a brilliant set of rules for our highways which are extremely fair and helpful for cycling and the health of the nation so now they need something else to work on(!)


----------



## Bollo (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Just so I understand. Is this the final outcome of the select committee thingy? If so it's a punctuation mark in the saga and we move on to what is the fallout from this?
> 
> If that's the case, we the little people can shift or reinforce our opinions (I always knew they were all doping nobbers/ But no rules were broken, move along nothing to see...) And also some big people can do the same, with the difference that sponsorship money hangs off their opinions. And maybe one or two key players people will be consider their positions, and having considered them say "nah, it'll be OK" and carry on as before.


The report appears to me as the sporting equivalent of aggressive tax avoidance. It's unpleasant, hypocritical, dishonest and it pishes people off but it isn't illegal or against the rules as they're stated now. That doesn't preclude more sinister goings-on, but it's not the smoking gun. Like @Dogtrousers says, the damage is reputational rather than criminal.

Sky, the UK sporting bodies and the press have been happy (and are still very happy) to tap in to the British myth of fair play, with success achieved by marginal gains, fish and chip suppers, pluck and Clare Balding. In reality, Sky is just another cycling team doing everything it thinks it can get away with to win. The rest is PR.


----------



## FishFright (5 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> are these the same MPs that broke their own ethics with the expense's scandal.............if it is then who's going to believe a word they say??
> 
> i for one aint going to trust an MP unless facts are stated and not just hear say from some "well known source"..........crossing an ethical line is not the same as breaking the rules......its as simple as that.




I'm not happy at all for British cycling to represented by Sky's unethical standards, especially after all their cleaner than thou media bull shot .

A long select committee investigation vs a fanboy with a man crush , I think I'll go with the politicians on this one


----------



## smutchin (5 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> The well respected source needs to be named. Perhaps it's Sutton, who knows but without us knowing who it is, it can't be given any real credence, though it does add to the whole rotting smell.



Sutton's statement to the committee was quoted in the news reports this morning, so clearly he's not the anonymous source.


----------



## smutchin (5 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> are these the same MPs that broke their own ethics with the expense's scandal



No. HTH.

If you have any specific accusations that call into question the integrity of the individuals who sat on the committee, feel free to share them, but if you only have slanderous innuendo, best keep it to yourself.


----------



## Maenchi (5 Mar 2018)

Triamcinolone, after a quick google for this drug it seems to have a lot of potential complications to it's use, getting busted for it the least of them


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> No. HTH.
> 
> If you have any specific accusations that call into question the integrity of the individuals who sat on the committee, feel free to share them, but if you only have slanderous innuendo, best keep it to yourself.


Chairman Damian Collins claimed over £4k to rent a house in London, in addition to a flat which he declared belonged to his wife https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...wn-london-homes-still-claim-rent-2151575.html - ethical?

Member Paul Farrelly is a supporter of Fair Fuel UK and opponent of car park charges, supporting motions like https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/832 so I suggest more a petrolhead than a friend to cycling.

Member Simon Hart employs his wife as an office manager (reported elsewhere at £35k) https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24813/simon_hart/carmarthen_west_and_south_pembrokeshire - does that cross an ethical line?

Member Julian Knight is the author of Inheritance Tax for Dummies, which purports to "ensure that your nearest and dearest are protected from a large inheritance tax bill". I'm sure it's legal but doesn't that cross an ethical line?

Member Rebecca Pow claimed that her Taunton constituents had "thousands of extra pounds in their pockets" http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/heres-everyone-mad-taunton-deane-826186 - which might cross an ethical line but at best, I don't think I'd rely on her judgment!


----------



## smutchin (5 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Chairman Damian Collins claimed over £4k to rent a house in London, in addition to a flat which he declared belonged to his wife https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...wn-london-homes-still-claim-rent-2151575.html - ethical?



OK, I'll go and sit in a corner with a dunce's cap on my head... 

Still doesn't amount to a reason to doubt the committee's findings though.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> OK, I'll go and sit in a corner with a dunce's cap on my head...
> 
> Still doesn't amount to a reason to doubt the committee's findings though.


Maybe not the findings, but I doubt the conclusions/judgment. A few members of this committee would appear to have little idea where some ethical lines are. I'm surprised they weren't more reluctant to open this box, so I strongly suspect we're going to get sporting fraud laws and they might be slightly warped.


----------



## jowwy (5 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> I'm not happy at all for British cycling to represented by Sky's unethical standards, especially after all their cleaner than thou media bull shot .
> 
> A long select committee investigation vs a fanboy with a man crush , I think I'll go with the politicians on this one


a select commitee with unethical expense claims you mean.........at least i admit to being a sky fanboy.......these MPs can't even provide actual facts

so best leave it there really


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

UKAD response snarks at DCMS for repeating the incorrect belief of doper Dan Stevens that UKAD runs the doping tribunals. https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/articl...tal-culture-media-and-sport-select-committee/


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

Somebody tells you someone, somewhere did something bad. Won’t tell you who they are or exactly what was done, but believe, it was bad.


Dogtrousers said:


> Freeman's refusal to confirm that the jiffy bag contained Flumicil is interesting: _where I have not had disclosed to me the nature of the “new evidence”, its format, source and any other relevant details, including why the evidence should only be available now, it would not be appropriate for me to respond presently. Given the potential seriousness of the matters you have now raised, I am advised that mindful of the background of various investigations which are ongoing, I should not be expected to provide any further comment to you presently._



And supposedly Russia is the corrupt state.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Mar 2018)

It's like watching people defending Lance all over again.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

And here's the warped criminal law recommendations. Let's jail the medics! 

"151.We do not think it would be effective to subject doping athletes to criminal procedures and penalties. Longer bans on competing are likely to be more of a disincentive to them, and will avoid placing an extra burden on law enforcement bodies such as the police and courts. However, the supply of drugs or promotion of unnecessary medical procedures is a different matter. The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against. This would send a stronger message about the unacceptability and the dangers of doping, not only to the suppliers but also to the athletes.

152.For UK Anti-Doping to be more effective, it not only needs more resources, but greater powers too. It has no powers to demand to see private papers, and financial and medical records, to aid its investigations. A change in the law to criminalise the supply of drugs to sports people could give UKAD the powers to access documents without seeking prior agreement, and the right to seek the support of the law enforcement agencies in their investigations, as appropriate."

They also agree with extending bans from 2 to 5 years so athletes miss two Olympics. As that's why people dope. Olympic gold.


----------



## roadrash (5 Mar 2018)

brian smith is giving sky a slating on paris nice commentary , he seems to have made his mind up that sky and wiggins crossed the line and guilty as charged. more or less based on shane suttons comments


----------



## jowwy (5 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> It's like watching people defending Lance all over again.


maybe you would like to tell us what bradley has done wrong........give us a full list with supporting evidence?


----------



## Bollo (5 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> maybe you would like to tell us what bradley has done wrong........give us a full list with supporting evidence?


His beard looks unkempt.


----------



## Crackle (5 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> His beard looks unkempt.


And he never mentions Fluimacil in his Skoda advert. It should come up at the bottom next to the APR.


----------



## jowwy (5 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> His beard looks unkempt.


i agree................


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Member Julian Knight is the author of Inheritance Tax for Dummies, which purports to "ensure that your nearest and dearest are protected from a large inheritance tax bill". I'm sure it's legal but doesn't that cross an ethical line?



How does that cross any ethical line? The tax laws, of any country, are hugely complex and a legal and financial minefield for the uninformed and unwary. If someone explains how one can legally save money - on taxes or indeed anything else - how is that unethical?


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172700, member: 45"]It undermines the intent of the law.[/QUOTE]
Only if the intent of the law is to confuse, mislead and gull the unwary into paying more than they are legally required to pay.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

The intent - yawn!

This is where everyone gets to reinterpret rules as they see fit because they’re understanding of the unspecified intent is better than someone else’s.


----------



## smutchin (5 Mar 2018)

Never failed a drug test, you know.


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172709, member: 45"]No lawyer or accountant ever said "......but you can get around that by......". Ever.

Ironic that obfuscation has burst into the room at this point. Try applying the same strategy to speed limits and you'll see it falter.[/QUOTE]
My goodness. If you have been privy to the briefings of every lawyer and every accountant - _ever _ - you must have heard some amazing things in your time. Would you like to share them?


----------



## hoopdriver (5 Mar 2018)

Not arguing at all, just my inner ironist making light of a sweeping statement!


----------



## Bollo (5 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Never failed a drug test, you know.


Lance is cycling's Godwin.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Lance is cycling's Godwin.


Surely Tommy Godwin is cycling's Godwin...


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Lance is cycling's Godwin.


Surely @Marmion is cycling's Godwin, inspiring the test... which makes Lance...


----------



## ColinJ (5 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> And he never mentions Fluimacil in his Skoda advert. It should come up at the bottom next to the APR.


No, but he did say that he spent his life doing "_everything possible_" to achieve his best times and that he was "_driven by something different_"!


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Mar 2018)

I wonder is there should be an ethical line at all in sport - sure it is against the rules and regulations or not. Having a grey area of ethics does not help anybody on either side of the mythical line.


----------



## Milzy (5 Mar 2018)

Strange isn't it, our politicians can't sort the NHS out, can't properly fund the police, can't fathom brexit, can't muster the energy to figure out the teacher shortage, can't solve corrupted corporate pension scandals, can't resolve our new found requirement for food banks....But they (seemingly without evidence) know for sure Wiggo was juicing.... Top notch that... Almost like they're diverting attention from other issues or something


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172791, member: 45"]Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today.


----------------------------------------------------------------ethical line-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication for that condition, which is legal to take, and which will improve your performance today.[/QUOTE]
OK, o wise one, what about "Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now *but we expect it is reasonably likely to kill you sooner or later if left untreated*. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today *and* which will improve your performance today" - which side of the line is that to you?


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> The "ethical line", however, appears to have been drawn by Brailsford himself. It's Dave's Petard and he appears to have been hoisted by it.


Which is odd, as I thought he objected to MPCC's different rules on the grounds that they would create just such an ethical grey area and his view was that if it's unethical then the rules should prohibit it, but if the rules allow it then it's ethical to do it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/team-sky-no-medicine-for-regret/ has a Team Sky response rather than a Dave B one but I think he said similar in interviews around that time.


----------



## DCLane (5 Mar 2018)

I'm currently sat outside the National Cycling Centre in Manchester *. Normally there's a few BC staff/riders milling about: today it's deserted.

There's a bored camera crew but no-one from BC in evidence.


* not loitering with intent: my 13yo's racing later and we're eating cottage pie.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172827, member: 45"]I suppose that something giving you an unfair advantage isn't, well, fair. Is it?[/QUOTE]
I'm confused: which is unfair? Is it an unfair advantage to take a medication you've a legitimate reason to take because it's expected to help your performance? Or is it an unfair advantage for others if you're denied treatment for a lethal condition because it will also improve performance?

Ultimately, deferring death is the ultimate performance benefit, isn't it? Ain't many races won by competitors who already died.

Personally, I think the ethical line is crossed when someone takes something to treat no illness, but that's not where it was drawn in the earlier post.


----------



## Paulus (5 Mar 2018)

Milzy said:


> Strange isn't it, our politicians can't sort the NHS out, can't properly fund the police, can't fathom brexit, can't muster the energy to figure out the teacher shortage, can't solve corrupted corporate pension scandals, can't resolve our new found requirement for food banks....But they (seemingly without evidence) know for sure Wiggo was juicing.... Top notch that... Almost like they're diverting attention from other issues or something



It may be a select committee that has come out with this report, but actually they are pretty toothless to do any thing about it. it is just pontificating on something they know little about. They are not judges, but are acting as such.


----------



## Daddy Pig (5 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> OK, o wise one, what about "Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now *but we expect it is reasonably likely to kill you sooner or later if left untreated*. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today *and* which will improve your performance today" - which side of the line is that to you?


If Need has a medical record of asthma and hay fever etc then that should be on his medical records, if he would like to share... 
This drug like asthma inhalers would help to put you on a level playing field if you so needed it. Playing sport etc in the summer with Hay fever which affects asthma is a real sod... personally I would take what the hell I could to help me... if that was a legitimate problem.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

There is no point arguing morality.

You build a set of rules that people agree to, are easy to implement, and easy to detect breaches.

That means accepting that something’s can’t be enforced effectively, and making the playing field level by allowing it.

Everything else is a waste of time.


----------



## Tin Pot (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172851, member: 45"]Others may be arguing, some of us are discussing.[/QUOTE]

By responding to only one statement and uniting the others? I think not.


----------



## BalkanExpress (5 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> Surely Tommy Godwin is cycling's Godwin...



No he’s not..but, Tommy Godwin is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Godwin_(cyclist,_born_1912)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Godwin_(cyclist,_born_1920)


----------



## david k (5 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> I wonder is there should be an ethical line at all in sport - sure it is against the rules and regulations or not. Having a grey area of ethics does not help anybody on either side of the mythical line.



I wish it was that simple. The intent is to ensure no unfair advantage is gained. If someone takes a substance that has been agreed to cure a health issue therefore ensuring a level playing field it's fine. If it's taken to gain an unfair advantage it isn't. The claim is that Wiggins took the substance under the guise of needing it for a legitimate cause but really it was to enhance performance. 

My issue with that is surely only Wiggins knows if he legitimately needed it? Only he knows the true intent. If the correct procedures were followed we have to accept it was done with the true intent. If the powers doubt the true nature they should change the rules.


----------



## david k (5 Mar 2018)

The issue will always be, where is the line? When is a drug performance enhancing and when isn't it? Is a multi vitamin helpful, enhances recovery, protien shakes etc? Is a pain killer acceptable for someone with a small injury but not someone trying to stop the regular pain of performance?

Many people look down their nose at people who have taken 'drugs' but will happily take caffeine and pain killers etc to go to work with a hangover, often these drinks or meds would be well over the limit for some sports, not the dirty drug taker people think they are.


----------



## Milkfloat (5 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5172791, member: 45"]Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today.


----------------------------------------------------------------ethical line-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication for that condition, which is legal to take, and which will improve your performance today.[/QUOTE]

Is this medication against the rules or not. If not are we banning coffee and vitamin C?


----------



## Milzy (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it. I'm prepared to believe he needed asthma meds of some sort. What is in great doubt is whether triamcinolone was an appropriate choice. We have a professor of respiratory medicine describing its choice as an asthma treatment as "bonkers", and we have first hand evidence from an ex pro of its efficacy as a PED.
> 
> I'm sure plenty of people in Sky knew the true intent. One of them (Sutton) has stated it explicitly.


I always thought it was just an antinflamatery? Great for tennis elbow, bad joints etc. Good for dulling the pain of an injury maybe but it’s not exactly the hot sauce is it??


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2018)

Wiggins on BBC 1 news at ten now.


----------



## smutchin (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it.



It's plausible that Wiggins didn't know what he was being given or why, only following doctor's orders. I'm prepared to accept that he has been used wrongly by the team. 

However, he still lied about having a needle stuck in his arse. And he can't pretend he didn't know that was wrong because he states quite clearly in his book that needles are a no-no.

Riders do need to take some personal responsibility for what goes in their body – and how.


----------



## david k (5 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it. I'm prepared to believe he needed asthma meds of some sort. What is in great doubt is whether triamcinolone was an appropriate choice. We have a professor of respiratory medicine describing its choice as an asthma treatment as "bonkers", and we have first hand evidence from an ex pro of its efficacy as a PED.
> 
> I'm sure plenty of people in Sky knew the true intent. One of them (Sutton) has stated it explicitly.



So maybe BW followed the legitimate path but team doctor prescribed something which would also give a performance enhancement? I doubt he wouldn't have known btw, just that it's plausible. 

Are the gains from what they did significant? I feel the issue with cheating is more large scale systematic abuse like EPO not a publically available medication(assuming it is here) manipulated to give a slight advantage.

Do other sports ban the same substances?


----------



## david k (5 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> It's plausible that Wiggins didn't know what he was being given or why, only following doctor's orders. I'm prepared to accept that he has been used wrongly by the team.
> 
> However, he still lied about having a needle stuck in his arse. And he can't pretend he didn't know that was wrong because he states quite clearly in his book that needles are a no-no.
> 
> Riders do need to take some personal responsibility for what goes in their body – and how.



What's the needle story, not heard this one, although not followed this closely lately


----------



## ColinJ (5 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> What's the needle story, not heard this one, although not followed this closely lately


Read back in today's earlier posts in this thread!


----------



## ColinJ (5 Mar 2018)

Original mention:


booze and cake said:


> That's the problem with Sky and the UCI, there's too many grey areas.
> 
> Brad did say this in his book 'My time'
> 
> ...



Then today:


KneesUp said:


> I was thinking about that bit over breakfast this morning. Thanks for saving me the time of finding it. "In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo..." is an odd way to phrase it if you really mean "In British cycling culture, at the words ‘illegal injection’ or the suggestion of one, you go, ‘Oh shoot’, it’s a complete taboo...
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the Scum are attacking the team sponsored by their owner, as you say.


----------



## Maenchi (5 Mar 2018)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639
Brad speaks....


----------



## Foghat (5 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> maybe you would like to tell us what bradley has done wrong?



Go and read the UCI rules on TUE applications. Then review the widely available evidence, and you'll find it clearly shows that Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky's medical personnel must have conspired to submit fraudulent applications, and that the approving UCI doctor Zorzoli was either complicit with or duped by the Sky conspiracy.

Of course the UCI has no appetite to re-visit or correct the corruption and the misapplication of its own rules, for obvious reasons - but remember that just because someone is able to dupe the rule-makers/policers it doesn't mean they didn't break the rules. Unfortunately, WADA seemingly can't generate enough interest or enthusiasm, or perhaps funds, to do another major investigation into cycling water that has long gone under the bridge, and UKAD is too toothless, so Wiggins and Sky continue to get away with having evaded appropriate sanction for illegally administering rocket-fuel performance-enhancing drugs to achieve several major wins/results.

That's one rather significant thing Wiggins can be shown to have done wrong. Given the clear lack of ethical behaviour by Sky in all manner of forms, the endless saga of serious failings, and having that true bastion of morality Murdoch at the top of the tree, there is little reason to maintain any kind of faith that it is the only thing he's done wrong in terms of breaching rules when enhancing his performance.


----------



## FishFright (5 Mar 2018)

Here's a radical doping solution , make it the teams problem. If any of its members get busted and found guilty then the entire team gets a months ban, then a years ban for a second offence. If getting caught would lose the rest of a team a chance of competing I'm sure things would change in a hurry.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (5 Mar 2018)

Maybe Wiggins read this?
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/supplements-for-cyclists-368262


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> Is this medication against the rules or not. If not are we banning coffee and vitamin C?


I know caffeine is banned in rugby at a certain amount, so yeh coffee is against the rules if you have enough of it


----------



## hoopdriver (6 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> Here's a radical doping solution , make it the teams problem. If any of its members get busted and found guilty then the entire team gets a months ban, then a years ban for a second offence. If getting caught would lose the rest of a team a chance of competing I'm sure things would change in a hurry.


Grossly unfair to the innocent parties and would never survive a legal challenge in any court. Look at the fiasco with the Russian athletes and there was an altogether stronger case to be made there about banning the nation, as a team.


----------



## hoopdriver (6 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> I know caffeine is banned in rugby at a certain amount, so yeh coffee is against the rules if you have enough of it


You’d have to have so much you’d be running off the ground to pee every minutes...


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> You’d have to have so much you’d be running off the ground to pee every minutes...


Ha ha maybe, I was told three strong coffees would put us over the limit, but none of us really had a clue.
Actually the approach to supplements back then was very casual, that's why I have some sympathy for these types of meds for atheletes, they are readily available and it's natural to want to take a pain killer, anti inflammatory etc. It's not really heavy scale EPO or blood doping.
Some who don't understand that group these people the same, they are at different ends of the spectrum imo

That's said it does appear sky manipulated the rules if not cheated, I guess they are not on their own


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> 1. The athlete is ultimately responsible for what goes into their body. "My doctor told me to" is no excuse.
> 2. David Millar abused it and says the effects were very significant.
> 3. Yes. The list is WADA's and applies across all sports.



I agree with that, not sure how much say an athelete has at the top level, I suspect a lot of pressure could be asserted, easier to comply, but yes no excuse 
The significance is really the thing here, when is a medication beyond a treatment and becomes and enhancer of performance, are we therefore saying any medication that makes significant gains is banned.
So the only consideration for the control is how good the drug is? How do you draw a line for that?


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> That's the million dollar question.
> 
> In the case of this specific class of drugs, corticosteroids, the MPCC (and David Millar) have called for controls. Lappartient has said he'll do something, if that's OK with ASO. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-repeats-call-for-wada-to-prohibit-corticosteroids-and-tramadol/
> 
> But in the more general case, how do you tweak the TUE system so it's not open to abuse, but still puts the athlete's welfare first ... No idea.



It's a problem I not sure we can find a great answer to. With teams always after any advantage they will continue to manipulate any rule or line anyone comes up with. We almost resign ourselves to accepting manipulation will happen and some will gain an advantage, as long as we fight the large scale I can live with this, not sure there's an alternative, we effectively have to take people at face value


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

Here's a simple solution: don't give TUEs for known performance-enhancing substances like Triamcinolone.

All this "level playing field" bs is nonsense. Illness and injury are natural hazards for a professional sportsperson. Them's the breaks.

I'm pleased to see that many of the younger generation of riders would rather ride totally clean or not ride at all. Tim Wellens turned down the TUE option at last year's Tour after falling ill due to an allergy. And after the crash that shattered his leg in 2015, Taylor Phinney even refused painkiller injections.


----------



## mjr (6 Mar 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> Maybe Wiggins read this?
> http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/supplements-for-cyclists-368262


And Farah read http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1224/we-tried-legal-doping-and-this-is-what-happened perhaps?

This stuff is promoted in so many publications, it seems little wonder amateurs are using. And then you can bet some will continue when they turn pro. Cycle sport seems to have a bit of a drug problem and it's been going on much longer and goes much deeper than one newish pro team. 

Is there any stomach among BC clubs to stamp this out? It's one of a handful of topics (equal opps, pavement cycling and h&h being some others) which from what I've seen will at best be ignored or deleted if you ask about it on a club's forum and at worst get you asked to leave or booted. Others have suggested in the past that the clubs I've interacted with have been unusual - if that's so, please show us clubs talking openly about what they do to combat this shoot...


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Go and read the UCI rules on TUE applications. Then review the widely available evidence, and you'll find it clearly shows that Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky's medical personnel must have conspired to submit fraudulent applications, and that the approving UCI doctor Zorzoli was either complicit with or duped by the Sky conspiracy.
> 
> Of course the UCI has no appetite to re-visit or correct the corruption and the misapplication of its own rules, for obvious reasons - but remember that just because someone is able to dupe the rule-makers/policers it doesn't mean they didn't break the rules. Unfortunately, WADA seemingly can't generate enough interest or enthusiasm, or perhaps funds, to do another major investigation into cycling water that has long gone under the bridge, and UKAD is too toothless, so Wiggins and Sky continue to get away with having evaded appropriate sanction for illegally administering rocket-fuel performance-enhancing drugs to achieve several major wins/results.
> 
> That's one rather significant thing Wiggins can be shown to have done wrong. Given the clear lack of ethical behaviour by Sky in all manner of forms, the endless saga of serious failings, and having that true bastion of morality Murdoch at the top of the tree, there is little reason to maintain any kind of faith that it is the only thing he's done wrong in terms of breaching rules when enhancing his performance.


So again i ask what has bradlet done wrong......you say team sky duped the uci doctors, but again there is no refutable evidence to back up that allegation..........

If its true that they have some sort of insider giving them this information, then name them and tell us everything. Dont keep using the word "allegedly" because that means didley squat.........provide irrefutable evidence to back up the claims or just say nothing. Cause all its now done is fan the flames of an alleged doping ring.........which from the outside looks like nothing of the sort, unless your a conspiracey theorist looking for a story or hidde agenda.

As for the jiffy bag people keep refeering too......as shane sutton as already stated, it was for Dr Freeman not SIR Bradley Wiggins. That is a known fact.


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Go and read the UCI rules on TUE applications. Then review the widely available evidence, and you'll find it clearly shows that Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky's medical personnel must have conspired to submit fraudulent applications, and that the approving UCI doctor Zorzoli was either complicit with or duped by the Sky conspiracy.



I think you've hit on the key problem with the TUE system - the doctor is appointed by the sport's governing body, not independently (eg by WADA). It's normal that the sport's governing body and the teams both want their top stars to be present at all the big races - they have immense commercial value - so it's hardly surprising that the doctors will be pressured into signing sicknotes for big name riders, even if they might not always be wholly justifiable on medical grounds. 

It's a grey area but it's clear that in the past that the system has been abused and exploited by both the UCI and the teams. Whether that will really change on Lappartient's watch remains to be seen.


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2018)

The full transcript of the Wiggins interview is now online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639

I'm sorry to say, I'm left with the impression he knew exactly what he was doing and is now dissembling


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> The full transcript of the Wiggins interview is now online
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639
> 
> I'm sorry to say, I'm left with the impression he knew exactly what he was doing and is now dissembling


Yep.


----------



## Bollo (6 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Is there any stomach among BC clubs to stamp this out? It's one of a handful of topics (equal opps, pavement cycling and h&h being some others) which from what I've seen will at best be ignored or deleted if you ask about it on a club's forum and at worst get you asked to leave or booted. Others have suggested in the past that the clubs I've interacted with have been unusual - if that's so, please show us clubs talking openly about what they do to combat this shoot...


I think you're projecting your expectations and interests on to the clubs, which might explain the short shrift. Your standard local road club isn't a campaigning organisation and, barring considerations about equal opps and safeguarding (lots of safeguarding) most will be struggling to get volunteers out to marshall the club 10, lead a ride or collect subs. I doubt there's a BC Club in the land that has the financial or human resources by itself to 'stamp this out' or even begin to monitor member behaviour outside the (very slight) chances of being tested.

It's true that a local road club could develop a doping culture (I'm personally not aware of any) but in the end it only matters if this percolates down to younger riders with prospects beyond the club. In this case you'd have to look at the coaches and make any concerns known to British Cycling as a safeguarding issue. It certainly shouldn't (and wouldn't) be dealt with internally by the club.

If a rider is sufficiently talented then they'll soon move away from the club to an amateur/development team, which should then fall under the remit of the BC Kremlin, UKAD and the rest.


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> The full transcript of the Wiggins interview is now online
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639
> 
> I'm sorry to say, I'm left with the impression he knew exactly what he was doing and is now dissembling


I know that's the popular belief, but it's also why the term "throw enough muck, and some of it is bound to stick" was coined.

I thought he spoke well enough, but it appears there may be an attempt by some to distance themselves now. 

It could well be the alternative is just to unthinkable, who knows.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

I remain unconvinced either way, I am resigned to the fact that until there is actual proof then or he comes right out and admits it (which aint gonna happen) then we will never know for sure , I would like to think he didn't cheat but I am not naïve (spelling) enough to believe it, the past has taught us this much,


----------



## Adam4868 (6 Mar 2018)

Im sticking with "is that the best youve got ?" Lots of hearsay and accusations but not too much evidence.Did they push the boundaries/ethics ? Id probally say so,did they cheat ? Still not convinced.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

i must have read a different report to others and saw a different BBC interview..............


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> The full transcript of the Wiggins interview is now online
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639
> 
> I'm sorry to say, I'm left with the impression he knew exactly what he was doing and is now dissembling


i find it hard to understand how you came to the conclusion.........unless we seen different reports or news interviews


----------



## Blue Hills (6 Mar 2018)

Saw an oldish interview with Brailsford where he was asked several times about making the paperwork available for independent external inspection. He dodged and weaved like no-ones business, essentially just said that all internal procedures had been complied with and that those internal bodies were in possession of all they required.

Since the charge is that British cycling was/is corrupt and self serving that is hardly an answer.

I am afraid it reminded me of the Catholic Church heirarchy/Vatican when asked about child abuse.

Wouldn't trust him an inch, centimetre, mm, marginal measurement.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

anyway how is froome getting in with proving his innocence? anybody?


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> Saw an oldish interview with Brailsford where he was asked several times about making the paperwork available for independent external inspection. He dodged and weaved like no-ones business, essentially just said that all internal procedures had been complied with and that those internal bodies were in possession of all they required.
> 
> Since the charge is that British cycling was/is corrupt and self serving that is hardly an answer.
> 
> ...


Maybe a bit strong.


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2018)

Slick said:


> I know that's the popular belief, but it's also why the term "throw enough muck, and some of it is bound to stick" was coined.
> 
> I thought he spoke well enough, but it appears there may be an attempt by some to distance themselves now.
> 
> It could well be the alternative is just to unthinkable, who knows.



He did speak well but my overall impression from the transcript and the interview is that he's chosen to spin this a particular way now and that perhaps he was a bit more blasé about these treatments when he didn't think any of this would come out. I also find it difficult to believe that someone with such a knowledge of the history of the sport, good and bad, would just shrug their shoulders and say he trusts the medics to make the right decision, I wouldn't. I think there's a lot more he's not saying. I think he's trod on the wrong side of the ethical divide and knew he was when he did so.



jowwy said:


> i find it hard to understand how you came to the conclusion.........unless we seen different reports or news interviews



Fair enough Jowwy, I didn't think you'd agree, I've set my reasons out above, for what it's worth I'm not sure my thinking about his career has changed that much other than being disappointed somewhat but not entirely surprised.


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

The always excellent Lionel Birnie:
https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/2018/3/5/1dm1u9ioiiygi09k0hsnj8z6c1z7kl


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Im just going to leave this here


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> He did speak well but my overall impression from the transcript and the interview is that he's chosen to spin this a particular way now and that perhaps he was a bit more blasé about these treatments when he didn't think any of this would come out. I also find it difficult to believe that someone with such a knowledge of the history of the sport, good and bad, would just shrug their shoulders and say he trusts the medics to make the right decision, I wouldn't. I think there's a lot more he's not saying. I think he's trod on the wrong side of the ethical divide and knew he was when he did so.
> 
> Fair enough I reckon. As was said earlier, there not much more going to come from this.


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> The always excellent Lionel Birnie:
> https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/2018/3/5/1dm1u9ioiiygi09k0hsnj8z6c1z7kl


I read his part one on Sky yesterday and thought it was very good and pretty much exposed the flawed base that they set off from.


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

The 'No, I've never had an injection - oh that one, ah well, that didn't count as an injection' kind of got me. 

Interesting that according to the latest transcript that he avoided answering why what he said about triamcinolone had changed. 
*"Can you clarify one thing, in 2016 you appeared to answer when asked by the Guardian if you had taken triamcinolone out of competition that you didn't, yet in the report now we hear you have acknowledged that you did indeed take it out of competition? Can you explain that discrepancy?*
"I never used it in competition without a TUE. So until I had that piece of paper and that document that said I was authorised to take it, it was never took. Out of competition, I had an injection after the 2013 Giro d'Italia, when I came out with a knee problem"

So, no, he couldn't explain the discrepancy in what he'd said previously.

He appeared to be very fond of his 'level playing field' too.

All very interesting whatever the truth proves to be.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> The 'No, I've never had an injection - oh that one, ah well, that didn't count as an injection' kind of got me.
> 
> Interesting that according to the latest transcript that he avoided answering why what he said about triamcinolone had changed.
> *"Can you clarify one thing, in 2016 you appeared to answer when asked by the Guardian if you had taken triamcinolone out of competition that you didn't, yet in the report now we hear you have acknowledged that you did indeed take it out of competition? Can you explain that discrepancy?*
> ...


how could bradley acknowledge taking it in the report when he was never interviewed??


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

If you read what was written - no report was mentioned. 

According to the transcript, it was the Guardian he told he had never taken it out of competition, and now he says he did.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2018)

I think we just need to agree that the MPs have got it right, an ethical line was crossed; anything else in terms of jumping up and down to defend Wiggins/Brailsford/Sky is just the words of apologists, so no point discussing it.


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I think we just need to agree that the MPs have got it right, an ethical line was crossed; anything else in terms of jumping up and down to defend Wiggins/Brailsford/Sky is just the words of apologists, so no point discussing it.



Lionel Birnie did another piece about yesterday's news, which I think sums it all up nicely:
"*I spent the morning reading* the reaction to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee’s report into doping in sport, and there was plenty of it. Some of it was excellent, informed, measured and human. Some of it was absolute nonsense. And some of it was somewhere in between. I think that sums up the reaction to pretty much everything that happens, though, doesn’t it."
https://www.lionelbirnie.com/blog/2018/3/6/the-pressure-to-express-an-opinion

(This is also the piece where he picks up on the reference to the Tour as a Classic, as mentioned by @Dogtrousers.)


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I think we just need to agree that the MPs have got it right, an ethical line was crossed; anything else in terms of jumping up and down to defend Wiggins/Brailsford/Sky is just the words of apologists, so no point discussing it.


so basically we have to agree with your opinion or get lost??


----------



## FishFright (6 Mar 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> Grossly unfair to the innocent parties and would never survive a legal challenge in any court. Look at the fiasco with the Russian athletes and there was an altogether stronger case to be made there about banning the nation, as a team.



Those clean team mates are possibly the ideal people to pressurise others to do , possibly the opposite to what going on now ?

As for 'grossly unfair' is that compared to doping ?


----------



## Crackle (6 Mar 2018)

Slick said:


> Fair enough I reckon. As was said earlier, there not much more going to come from this.



I think if there's more to come out we might have to wait for a Biography or two or someone else to be caught up in a different web of intrigue. A collapse of Sky might provide the necessary.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> If you read what was written - no report was mentioned.
> 
> According to the transcript, it was the Guardian he told he had never taken it out of competition, and now he says he did.


* yet in the report now we hear you have acknowledged that you did indeed take it out of competition? *

so the report was mentioned in your post


----------



## hoopdriver (6 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> Those clean team mates are possibly the ideal people to pressurise others to do , possibly the opposite to what going on now ?
> 
> As for 'grossly unfair' is that compared to doping ?


They might possibly be serial killers or pedophiles too - tell you what, let's just jail the lot of them, on spec, cuz you just never know...


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

I'm more inclined to believe that they manipulated the rules to suit the rider, but we may never know for sure as how can we honestly say they didn't make the decision for the right reasons? It seems to be intent that is in question, how can we disprove their true intent? 

As previously posted, if there wasn't a TUE available for this drug it wouldn't be an issue, but it was available througha TUE so open for someone to use if they get the exemption.


Close the loophole
Accept we may never know true intent for previous TUEs, I imagine there are many others


----------



## FishFright (6 Mar 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> They might possibly be serial killers or pedophiles too - tell you what, let's just jail the lot of them, on spec, cuz you just never know...



Or worse Brexit and Tory voters :S


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

*The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS) report said it received "confidential material from a well-placed and respected source" about Team Sky's medical policy between 2011 and 2013 that states Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team in preparation for the 2012 season.*

So who was this small group of riders? was froome one of them? was cavendish one of them? bernie esisel? eddie boss? michael rogers? richie port?.........................?????? to many allegedlies and not enough fact based evidence


----------



## FishFright (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> *The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS) report said it received "confidential material from a well-placed and respected source" about Team Sky's medical policy between 2011 and 2013 that states Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team in preparation for the 2012 season.*
> 
> So who was this small group of riders? was froome one of them? was cavendish one of them? bernie esisel? eddie boss? michael rogers? richie port?.........................?????? to many allegedlies and not enough fact based evidence




*It was me ! *


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I think we just need to agree that the MPs have got it right, an ethical line was crossed; anything else in terms of jumping up and down to defend Wiggins/Brailsford/Sky is just the words of apologists, so no point discussing it.



I don't agree, in professional sport is there even an ethical line? There are either rules broken or not. They can lie (no injections) and use grey areas (TUEs) as much as they like (as in this case), but unless rules are broken then there is no clean definition of cheat or not. The rules seemed to have been tightened over the last few years so hopefully this will not happen again, but I am sure another loophole will be found that will need plugging.

My personal opinion (not that it matters) is that not only the mythical ethical line was crossed, but also real rules were broken. The point is without proof there is nothing that can be done apart from changing the rules to prevent things such as lost medical data, jiffy bags, corrupt doctors etc from interfering too much. Like others I think a lot needs to be taken away from the teams and pulled in centrally, although I don't trust the UCI to run it.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> so basically we have to agree with your opinion or get lost??


I am merely following your line throughout


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> * yet in the report now we hear you have acknowledged that you did indeed take it out of competition? *
> 
> so the report was mentioned in your post


Ah, so it was. Would you like to explain just how much of a difference that makes to him first saying no he didn't and then yes he did?


----------



## ColinJ (6 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> My personal opinion (not that it matters) is that not only the mythical ethical line was crossed, but also real rules were broken. The point is without proof there is nothing that can be done apart from changing the rules to prevent things such as lost medical data, jiffy bags, corrupt doctors etc from interfering too much. Like others I think a lot needs to be taken away from the teams and pulled in centrally, although I don't trust the UCI to run it.


At the very least, complete, honest and accurate medical record keeping should be a condition for a team to be able to continue. A 3 month team ban for _any _failure in record keeping would focus minds - laptop stolen and no backup of its data - BAN; no paper records - BAN; jiffy bag with unknown contents - BAN!


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I am merely following your line throughout


nope - i am disagreeing with the MPs report and highlighting the fact that UKAD state that SKY have done nothing wrong, i don't really care what you think tbh as you just want to agree with the MPs cause you can't base your opinion on anything else and your adding nothing to the debate.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> Ah, so it was. Would you like to explain just how much of a difference that makes to him first saying no he didn't and then yes he did?


it makes a big difference as he was never interviewed by the MPs therefore he cant have said it in their report...........and its quite easy for papers to crop, paste and type things out of context to make it look more damning than it actually was/is


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

User3094 said:


> Exactly. Even now Froomes not trained with the rest of the team for months. His goals are entirely different, as were Wiggos.


yes, froomes goal is to try and get out of the recent AAF scandal he is involved in.............


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> It seems to be intent that is in question, how can we disprove their true intent?



It's worth reading David Millar's account of taking Kenacort (Triamcinolone) for a description of its effects - both positive and negative:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html

It's difficult to reconcile this account (and others) with the idea that a doctor would prescribe this medication (especially administered by intramuscular injection) to treat a bout of hayfever.


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

ColinJ said:


> At the very least, complete, honest and accurate medical record keeping should be a condition for a team to be able to continue. A 3 month team ban for _any _failure in record keeping would focus minds - laptop stolen and no backup of its data - BAN; no paper records - BAN; jiffy bag with unknown contents - BAN!



Agreed. Failure to keep adequate medical records should be regarded at least as seriously as a missed whereabouts test.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

@ColinJ send in your cv, no scrap that , you've got the job


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

ColinJ said:


> At the very least, complete, honest and accurate medical record keeping should be a condition for a team to be able to continue. A 3 month team ban for _any _failure in record keeping would focus minds - laptop stolen and no backup of its data - BAN; no paper records - BAN; jiffy bag with unknown contents - BAN!



I would argue that the teams should not be merely holding the medical data it should be held and perhaps administered by a central independent authority. I would even go to say that perhaps the teams should be banned from having medical staff and they should be provided centrally.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

what did you say mr pro cyclist you have hayfever and your gonna suffer cycling through france in july, well tough shyte looks like your gonna suffer then, or don't bother with this cycling lark.

get rid of TUE'S altogether, solves the problem of them being abused


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> UKAD state that SKY have done nothing wrong



That's an _interesting_ interpretation of what UKAD have actually said.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> That's an _interesting_ interpretation of what UKAD have actually said.









am i miss interprating this tweet (s**t spelling i know)


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> It's worth reading David Millar's account of taking Kenacort (Triamcinolone) for a description of its effects - both positive and negative:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html
> 
> It's difficult to reconcile this account (and others) with the idea that a doctor would prescribe this medication (especially administered by intramuscular injection) to treat a bout of hayfever.



Interesting read, I've also read his book

Cannot help thinking for the TUE to be manipulated takes more than one person....usually
I cannot believe it is available if it's more of a PED than a legitimate drug, surely with 20 years of exposure to drug cheats, manipulation and negative publicity they would close this seemingly obvious loophole? It really makes me shake my head in disbelief, not at the riders or teams, we know what they are like but the authorities.


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

roadrash said:


> what did you say mr pro cyclist you have hayfever and your gonna suffer cycling through france in july, well tough shyte looks like your gonna suffer then, or don't bother with this cycling lark.
> 
> get rid of TUE'S altogether, solves the problem of them being abused



I'm about twice the weight of a professional rider, this puts them at an unfair advantage, they should ride with an 100 kg back pack on a snow bike to ensure it's a level playing field


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> View attachment 398814
> 
> 
> am i miss interprating this tweet (s**t spelling i know)



I heard the interview. UKAD saying 'no evidence' is nothing like your claim that they said 'Sky had done nothing wrong'.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> I'm about twice the weight of a professional rider, this puts them at an unfair advantage, they should ride with an 100 kg back pack on a snow bike to ensure it's a level playing field



I didn't realise you was competing against the pros


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> am i miss interprating this tweet



Yes, I think so. But it's hard to know what to make of the tweet since it's not a direct quote and probably doesn't convey the full content of what she said.

If you want some more context for Sapstead's comments, you only have to look at what she has said previously:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/01/british-cycling-team-sky-package-bradley-wiggins


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> I heard the interview. UKAD saying 'no evidence' is nothing like your claim that they said 'Sky had done nothing wrong'.


its not my claim, but the claim within the Tweet sent out by cycling plus......


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Yes, I think so. But it's hard to know what to make of the tweet since it's not a direct quote and probably doesn't convey the full content of what she said.
> 
> If you want some more context for Sapstead's comments, you only have to look at what she has said previously:
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/01/british-cycling-team-sky-package-bradley-wiggins


so what part of the tweet am i misinterprating??


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> it makes a big difference as he was never interviewed by the MPs therefore he cant have said it in their report...........and its quite easy for papers to crop, paste and type things out of context to make it look more damning than it actually was/is


You're missing the point. It's nothing to do with the report. It is to do with him lying - saying one thing at one time and then saying something different another.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> I heard the interview. UKAD saying 'no evidence' is nothing like your claim that they said 'Sky had done nothing wrong'.


if someone says " no evidence of wrong doing" does that not mean, they did nothing wrong?


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> You're missing the point. It's nothing to do with the report. It is to do with him lying - saying one thing at one time and then saying something different another.


see i was always brought up with the following saying

"you have to have a good memory to be a liar, so if you always tell the truth you can never get caught out". 

so is it a case of bad memory or a case of lying??


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

roadrash said:


> I didn't realise you was competing against the pros


Until they agree to a level playing field I'm not playing


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Yes, I think so. But it's hard to know what to make of the tweet since it's not a direct quote and probably doesn't convey the full content of what she said.
> 
> If you want some more context for Sapstead's comments, you only have to look at what she has said previously:
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/01/british-cycling-team-sky-package-bradley-wiggins


so that report from the guardian was dated 1st March 2017.........what about what she said in todays interview on radio5 live, that cycling plus tweeted about???


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> so what part of the tweet am i misinterprating??



"UKAD found no evidence of wrongdoing at Sky" is absolutely not at all the same as "UKAD state that Sky did nothing wrong"

Either you're being disingenuous or... there's the other possibility.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> "UKAD found no evidence of wrongdoing at Sky" is absolutely not at all the same as "UKAD state that Sky did nothing wrong"
> 
> Either you're being disingenuous or... there's the other possibility.


if there is NO evidence in wrong doing, then how could they have done something wrong. explain???

its like charging somebody for murder, but saying theres no evidence available to back it up................UKAD found no EVIDENCE of WRONG doing, so in essence, they did NOTHING wrong


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

not finding ecidence does not mean it doesn't exist , theres no in essence about it and wiggins has Not been charged with anything so the comparison is mute, you can accuse someone of murder but you wouldn't charge them with no evidence


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

You could say there is no evidence of wrong doing about anything though, well anything where you found no evidence of wrong doing.
Unless it's code for we couldn't catch them?


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> its not my claim, but the claim within the Tweet sent out by cycling plus......





jowwy said:


> nope - i am disagreeing with the MPs report and *highlighting the fact that UKAD state that SKY have done nothing wrong*, i don't really care what you think tbh as you just want to agree with the MPs cause you can't base your opinion on anything else and your adding nothing to the debate.



Ermm, I am pointing out that you interpreted the quote from the Tweet that said "UKAD found no evidence of wrongdoing at Sky" as "UKAD state that SKY have done nothing wrong". The two are very different things.


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

User3094 said:


> It kinda is, UKAD is massively underfunded so didnt have the resource to 'catch him'


It's dangerous ground though, as it's unfounded speculation, and mud sticks sadly. It's probably better to say nothing, that said there's lots of reports with cast speculation so they have already created enough doubt to discredit sky and all. I think all teams probably do the same, the issue with sky is theynhave been very verbal about these things in the past they are the ones being highlighted now


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> if someone says " no evidence of wrong doing" does that not mean, they did nothing wrong?



No, it could also mean that they cannot prove it. I think UKAD could have stated that "there is no evidence that Sky broke the rules as applied at the time". That would be much clearer as depending on your ethics, losing medical files and lying could be construed as 'doing wrong'.


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

More news http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43306210


----------



## Milkfloat (6 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> It's dangerous ground though, as it's unfounded speculation, and mud sticks sadly. It's probably better to say nothing, that said there's lots of reports with cast speculation so they have already created enough doubt to discredit sky and all. I think all teams probably do the same, the issue with sky is theynhave been very verbal about these things in the past they are the ones being highlighted now



I think UKAD have been pretty good at sticking to the facts, which I guess they have to less they get sued. The select committee can say whatever they like and throw as much mud as they like due to parliamentary privilege - sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not.


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> see i was always brought up with the following saying
> 
> "you have to have a good memory to be a liar, so if you always tell the truth you can never get caught out".
> 
> so is it a case of bad memory or a case of lying??


I have no idea. I don't know the man. 
But he didn't answer the question put to him.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> _"The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against."_


 
but, once again it depends on proof,


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> On the subject of the report, while we've all been getting our knickers in a twist about Wiggo (Doping nobber/Oh no he isn't), possibly the most interesting point that no one is talking about is
> _
> "The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against."_


Yes, that is a good point. We have had athletes get medals upgraded in the past.


----------



## Siclo (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> On the subject of the report, while we've all been getting our knickers in a twist about Wiggo (Doping nobber/Oh no he isn't), possibly the most interesting point that no one is talking about is
> _
> "The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against."_



Yeah I foresee some sort of sporting fraud laws that'll be unworkable in practice and never applied.

On the whole the report hasn't helped, if you thought Sky were dirty this has just fuelled your suspicions, if you thought they were clean but taking the rules to the edge, there's nothing to change your opinion.

What paragraph 110 seems to demonstrate is that the committee didn't understand the rules on TUE's.

It seems to come down to 'We think you were cheating but we're not sure, either of what you were doing or what consists of cheating, and if what you were doing isn't cheating we think it should be'


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> Yeah I foresee some sort of sporting fraud laws that'll be unworkable in practice and never applied.
> 
> On the whole the report hasn't helped, if you thought Sky were dirty this has just fuelled your suspicions, if you thought they were clean but taking the rules to the edge, there's nothing to change your opinion.
> 
> ...


If that's true, they were never cheating.


----------



## Bobby Mhor (6 Mar 2018)

I have tired to follow this but boy, it's mind-numbing..
The points that get me is :

An *anonymous witness*, whom the DCMS select committee report referred to as a “well placed source”, claimed Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team. The MPs’ report reads: “The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season.”

Anonymous ? someone with a grudge?

The report reads: “From the evidence presented to the committee it might appear that Bradley Wiggins *may* have been treated with triamcinolone on up to nine occasions, in and out of competition, during a four-year period. It would be hard to know what possible medical need could have required such a seemingly excessive use of this drug.”

May? not definitive it is? 

Shane Sutton..

All of a sudden, he's flavour of the month... a grudge being borne?


The committee lead by a man who isn't exactly 'clean'... in his parliamentary life.

I smell shite and to be honest, cycling may have its problems but it's an easy target while other sports gets a passing mention. Go after the big money sports where drug use is more prevalent but then I only got told that by an *anonymous source. *Cycling is the fall guy here.


----------



## booze and cake (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> On the subject of the report, while we've all been getting our knickers in a twist about Wiggo (Doping nobber/Oh no he isn't), possibly the most interesting point that no one is talking about is
> _
> "The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against."_



People like Sky's former doctor and blood doping specialist Geert Leinders you mean, why would Sky employ someone like that



jowwy said:


> View attachment 398814
> 
> 
> am i miss interprating this tweet (s**t spelling i know)



Well I'm grateful to Russian hackers that brought this all to light, thank you Fancy Bears. Whole thing stinks.

@jowwy you're sounding just like the Lance apologists with their 'never failed a test' line. True though that was, he was proven to be behind the biggest sporting fraud in history, and with cyclings history, Sky's continued declarations of being a clean team, and the fact Sky have won the last umpteen TDF's in a row, the winner of which has recently failed a test. So errr, yeah we're totally entitled to a healthy dose of scepticism. 

Also you seem to be implying that UKAD have given Sky a free pass, that is very clearly not being said. Have you read the report? The very same Nicole Sapstead you quote says in the report that "our investigation was hampered by a lack accurate medical records being available to British Cycling. This is a serious concern as part of the conditions to receive public funding from UK Sport and other Home Country Sports Councils, all sports governing bodies must comply with the UK National Anti-doping Policy. This is complicated further by the crossover between British Cycling and Team Sky." UKAD went further and said ."..the lack of records for the package sent to Team Sky in 2011 was not an isolated example and was a result of the failure of BC's systems". It went on...."There was no process to record what pharmaceutical products and medical supplies were stored by BC at the Manchester velodrome and elsewhere, and what was checked in and out of the medical room on site...the medical room was chaotic and disorganised, there was no apparent filing system and papers were piled up in cupboards and filing cabinets". 

We are not talking about them missing one or two entries to minor riders, we're talking about them administering drugs to their top riders, over the course of years, and having none of this recorded. Why would they do this? hmmmm. It is frankly a joke that Brailsford confidently claims they are following the highest ethical standards in cycling, yet they don't have access to records to show what treatments the doctors are prescribing to the riders??? Seriously? 

Whatever the reason/excuse, that is not acceptable and is very dodgy behaviour, it does'nt just breach Sky's own policy, but that of the General Medical Council and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Usery Agency. If your own GP acted like this they'd have the book thrown at them. UKAD are asking the right questions, but the whole Jiffy bag shambles just shows Sky have lost or have no record of the info that answers the key questions being asked, how convenient.....

As @Dogtrousers said a few pages back Brailsford is being hoisted by his own petard as the Sky PR line keeps being shown to differ drastically from reality and its simply not plausible anymore. For a team that prides itself on attention to detail and leaving no stone un-turned, its simply not believable that they could be so shambolic. 

It also seems blindingly obvious the TUE's are being abused, and for that the UCI must take most of the responsibility, have they come out and said the system is getting reviewed?. In 2013 there were 636 approved TUE's, its more than tripled in 3 years and in 2016 there was 2175, that is a pretty alarming rise, and we're supposed to believe cycling is cleaner now than ever.......

And as for the un-named source, it seems it can't be Sutton as he is named in the report, but what about Jess Varnish? She's had plenty to say to criticise Sky/BC.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

roadrash said: ↑
'We think you were cheating but we're not sure, either of what you were doing or what consists of cheating, and if what you were doing isn't cheating we think it should be'
I think you've nailed it 

weird @Dogtrousers not sure how you managed to get me quoted as saying that , its in @Siclo post


----------



## smutchin (6 Mar 2018)

Glitch in the Matrix. Be afraid. They're coming after you for saying nasty things about Wiggo.


----------



## Blue Hills (6 Mar 2018)

Slick said:


> Maybe a bit strong.


I think not. You develop a certain sense for these things as you get older.

If someone acts bent they very probably are.

Especially if it would be so easy to prove that they are not.

I have little time for priesthoods, whether they wrap themselves in religion and the church or cycling.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> People like Sky's former doctor and blood doping specialist Geert Leinders you mean, why would Sky employ someone like that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So after you copied and pasted all that......there is still no evidence of wrong doing?

Its easy to call people "apologists" just because they dont agree to your opinion.......the same as remoaners calling brexiters young, thick and stupid.

Until some one prints or provides cast iron proof of cheating, then im afraid there is no cheating to to discuss........just more conspiracey and alegedlies


----------



## Slick (6 Mar 2018)

Blue Hills said:


> I think not. You develop a certain sense for these things as you get older.
> 
> If someone acts bent they very probably are.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but it's still a bit strong.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> So after you copied and pasted all that......there is still no evidence of wrong doing?
> 
> Its easy to call people "apologists" just because they dont agree to your opinion.......the same as remoaners calling brexiters young, thick and stupid.
> 
> Until some one prints or provides cast iron proof of cheating, then im afraid there is no cheating to to discuss........just more conspiracey and alegedlies


Close the thread. If only to sort out the awful spelling...


----------



## booze and cake (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> So after you copied and pasted all that......there is still no evidence of wrong doing?
> 
> Its easy to call people "apologists" just because they dont agree to your opinion.......the same as remoaners calling brexiters young, thick and stupid.
> 
> Until some one prints or provides cast iron proof of cheating, then im afraid there is no cheating to to discuss........just more conspiracey and alegedlies



LOL, err broken record, that was my point, its not always the case of needing a smoking gun. Never failed a test is not proof of innocence, see Lance and how that defence worked out. Remember Sky have failed a test and have yet to adequately explain it. They are now trying to find loopholes and arguments to weasel out of it, they are going to have to try harder than Bertie's 'it was in the steak'. There's no doubt going to be another long report and lots of legal fees involved in that one.

You were reposting that UKAD tweet like it exonerated Sky, I simply copied the bits in the report that showed they said nothing of the sort.

Have you read the report? There is now a catalogue of Sky lies, and having read all of the report, on balance I think there is plenty of questions raised that have not been adequately answered, to such an extent it brings their whole operation into question. If you have read it and think there is nothing in there of concern I find that surprising, do you think Sky have been transparent and helpful during this report? Care to show what you think they have done to explain it satisfactorily? 

But hey that's your opinion, but just from this thread I think you'll have to acknowledge that your opinion is not the majority one, the press coverage is not back pages, but front, this is a big deal. You may be convinced by Sky's arguments, but many of us are not, get over it.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see how this pans out, all I can see for certain is that the lawyers will be the winners and pro cycling is the loser. Oh and I reckon there will be lots of cheap Sky kit on ebay this summer


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Wiggins received 3 x 40mg injections of triamcinolone, Venus Williams received 5 x 60mg injections. How's YOUR career/reputation going Venus?


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> LOL, err broken record, that was my point, its not always the case of needing a smoking gun. Never failed a test is not proof of innocence, see Lance and how that defence worked out. Remember Sky have failed a test and have yet to adequately explain it. They are now trying to find loopholes and arguments to weasel out of it, they are going to have to try harder than Bertie's 'it was in the steak'. There's no doubt going to be another long report and lots of legal fees involved in that one.
> 
> You were reposting that UKAD tweet like it exonerated Sky, I simply copied the bits in the report that showed they said nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...


So you think this post with about a dozen people condemning sky is the over arching opinion of the majority of people. Your deluded man, ive seen hundreds of tweets in defence of team sky, along with posts on instagram and facebook. This forum is a small minority of theorists who fall over themselves to condemn people for what is a small issue for most. 

As for getting over it, i was over it a long time ago when UKAD stated there was no case to answer. For me that was the end of the matter. Then some jumped up MPS who themselves have been caught up in scandal after scandal within parliment and with the expenses scandal, thought it best to produce a report with no evidence condemning not just wiggo, team sky....but also mo farah, lord coe and a few others, for what exactly???? For no good reason other than to create another scandal to hide their own inadequancies.... (crap spelling maybe)


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> @jowwy
> 
> keep politics out of it.
> 
> Also, I think you've made your point. Several times.


Others have made their point to, but are still posting. Would you like to name them too or are you only naming me because i dont agree with your opinion????


----------



## booze and cake (6 Mar 2018)

hahahaha so you will ignore a 54 page report from experts in the field detailing substantial failings in cycling and athletics, but your critical appraisal extends to supportive tweets and posts on instagram and facebook....and I'm the deluded one, priceless.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> hahahaha so you will ignore a 54 page report from experts in the field detailing substantial failings in cycling and athletics, but your critical appraisal extends to supportive tweets and posts on instagram and facebook....and I'm the deluded one, priceless.


That's not what I said, but well done in coming to that conclusion........i said posts in support of team sky and wiggins, compared to the minimal amount of negative people commenting here.


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

theres bound to be , theres more people on faceache and twatter compared to the number of members of cyclechat


----------



## mjr (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> On the subject of the report, while we've all been getting our knickers in a twist about Wiggo (Doping nobber/Oh no he isn't), possibly the most interesting point that no one is talking about is
> _
> "The Government should give serious consideration to criminalising the supply of drugs to sportspeople with intent to enhance performance rather than to mitigate ill-health, and in so doing defraud clean athletes they are competing against."_


TMN to me. Thanks.


----------



## mjr (6 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> Oh and I reckon there will be lots of cheap Sky kit on ebay this summer


Of course there will. This year's kit is more noticeably different, being whiter than white.


----------



## mjr (6 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> hahahaha so you will ignore a 54 page report from experts in the field detailing substantial failings in cycling and athletics, but your critical appraisal extends to supportive tweets and posts on instagram and facebook....and I'm the deluded one, priceless.


Can you provide a link to the expert report, please? It would be interesting to compare it with the MPs' one.


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> Wiggins received 3 x 40mg injections of triamcinolone, Venus Williams received 5 x 60mg injections. How's YOUR career/reputation going Venus?


She's taken up cycling?


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> So you think this post with about a dozen people condemning sky is the over arching opinion of the majority of people. Your deluded man, ive seen hundreds of tweets in defence of team sky, along with posts on instagram and facebook. This forum is a small minority of theorists who fall over themselves to condemn people for what is a small issue for most.
> 
> As for getting over it, i was over it a long time ago when UKAD stated there was no case to answer. For me that was the end of the matter. Then some jumped up MPS who themselves have been caught up in scandal after scandal within parliment and with the expenses scandal, thought it best to produce a report with no evidence condemning not just wiggo, team sky....but also mo farah, lord coe and a few others, for what exactly???? For no good reason other than to create another scandal to hide their own inadequancies.... (crap spelling maybe)


Twitter, fb and Instagram? Cycling experts? Lawyers? Did you believe the story years ago about a double decker on the moon?


----------



## roadrash (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> Did you believe the story years ago about a double decker on the moon?



Now come on, you not going to tell me this isn't true are you


----------



## hopless500 (6 Mar 2018)

roadrash said:


> Now come on, you not going to tell me this isn't true are you


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

hopless500 said:


> Twitter, fb and Instagram? Cycling experts? Lawyers? Did you believe the story years ago about a double decker on the moon?


No - in the same way as i dont believe the shambolic report put out by an MP select committee, but some of you do


----------



## booze and cake (6 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Can you provide a link to the expert report, please? It would be interesting to compare it with the MPs' one.



@mjr I mean the MP's report, in which they ask various experts. I've not read all this thread but assume it had been posted already.... Just had a rummage, here's the link: http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DCMS-Doping-report.pdf

The experts include Dr MIchael Ashendon, who I think wrote a lot of the current anti-doping regs, Nicole Sapstead chair of UKAD, reps from WADA, written reports from MHPRA, so people who know and work with this stuff, not Kim Kardashian or some other random tweeter off the internet, funnily enough Kim was'nt invited to attend, god knows why, she's got millions of followers, a tweet from here would be a slam dunk for the defence right?


----------



## Foghat (6 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> So again i ask what has bradlet done wrong......you say team sky duped the uci doctors, but again there is no refutable evidence to back up that allegation..........
> 
> If its true that they have some sort of insider giving them this information, then name them and tell us everything. Dont keep using the word "allegedly" because that means didley squat.........provide irrefutable evidence to back up the claims or just say nothing. Cause all its now done is fan the flames of an alleged doping ring.........which from the outside looks like nothing of the sort, unless your a conspiracey theorist looking for a story or hidde agenda.



There's no 'allegedly' about it - the self-incriminating statements are there for all to see in Wiggins's book and interview utterances. You just have to realise and understand what you're reading and hearing, which you appear not to, given your difficulty with such fundamental matters as comprehending the difference between failing to find evidence and evidence not existing or proving innocence.

Whilst your desperation to cling to the belief that Wiggins won everything all fair and square is amusing, I have no need or inclination to try to convince you, or anyone, otherwise - you asked what Wiggins had done wrong and I told you. If you opt to persist in your delusion it makes no difference to me. The main thing from all this is that the select committee saw through the elaborate deception, manipulation and obstruction perpetrated by Sky and is aiming to use its findings for the improvement of sports governance, management and administration in the future. And the ethics credentials of the individuals on the committee aren't of any real significance here - the report and any future developments arising from it will be subject to plenty of scrutiny in many quarters to ensure that.

Trying to sanction Wiggins and Sky/others isn't really an especially important outcome of this process or the current furore - enough people know and understand what went on and what now needs to be done, at least in broad terms, to reduce the opportunity for fraudulent and unwarranted TUE applications to be used as a method to get sportspeople pumped full of performance-enhancing drugs when they need to perform better.

A reasonably just outcome is that Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky are suffering the loss of reputation they deserve. They took a major, highly unethical gamble and lost, although they may have 'won' some races and gained plenty of publicity for the Murdoch machine along the way. Thankfully in the minds of a considerable proportion of the population, those 'wins' will be accompanied with asterisks (real or virtual) that assign a _'won using performance-enhancing drugs'_ qualification/caveat to the roll of 'honour'. The perpetrators will keep their millions, and be comfortable for the rest of their lives, so they should really just suck it up and go away.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> There's no 'allegedly ' about it - the self-incriminating statements are there for all to see in Wiggins's book and interview utterances. You just have to realise and understand what you're reading and hearing, which you appear not to, given your difficulty with such fundamental matters as comprehending the difference between failing to find evidence and evidence not existing or proving innocence.
> 
> Whilst your desperation to cling to the belief that Wiggins won everything all fair and square is amusing, I have no need or inclination to try to convince you, or anyone, otherwise - you asked what Wiggins had done wrong and I told you. If you opt to persist in your delusion it makes no difference to me. The main thing from all this is that the select committee saw through the elaborate deception, manipulation and obstruction perpetrated by Sky and is aiming to use its findings for the improvement of sports governance, management and administration in the future. And the ethics credentials of the individuals on the committee aren't of any real significance here - the report and any future developments arising from it will be subject to plenty of scrutiny in many quarters to ensure that.
> 
> ...


Theres no allegedly about it.....even though the word allegedly is used quite a lot in their report.

Again provide the evidence to back up the report and i will listen, until then its utter make believe and nonsesense


----------



## david k (6 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> Close the thread. If only to sort out the awful spelling...



Keep spelling out of it


----------



## lazybloke (6 Mar 2018)

Oh no he isn't. Oh yes he is.

I'm more interested to see how Froome will mount a defence, and _when. _
Whilst we're all waiting, Prudhomme's been making more noise.


----------



## jowwy (6 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> You haven't read it have you?


Yes......next question


----------



## Bollo (6 Mar 2018)

Just for light relief, here’s Floyd’s considered opinion...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ey-wiggins-stripped-tour-de-france-2012-title


----------



## jowwy (7 Mar 2018)

as anybody seen the latest statement from Shane Sutton??


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Just for light relief, here’s Floyd’s considered opinion...
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ey-wiggins-stripped-tour-de-france-2012-title


If only Floyd had had a TuE: One of the grates.


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2018)

The Sutton statement is here

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...iggins-freeman-come-forward-tell-truth-371809


----------



## Bollo (7 Mar 2018)

This is getting Shakespearian. Sutton and Freeman are clearly not BFFs (something to do with Freeman not supporting Sutton during the the sexism/bullying row?) but I can't decide whether Sutton's trying a kack-handed defence of Wiggins or damning him by association. He pulls out the Lance defence - 

_"If that was to happen, do you not think that [t]he governing bodies out there, the system in place, the whereabouts system and everything else… that these riders weren’t tested? They were tested on a regular basis.."_

which always makes me suspicious.


----------



## Adam4868 (7 Mar 2018)

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-03-06/...rt-of-team-sky-despite-damning-doping-report/


----------



## Bollo (7 Mar 2018)

...Working my own analogy, Mrs Wiggo would make a top Lady Macbeth.


----------



## mjr (7 Mar 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...team-sky-and-british-cycling-compensation-bid is a bit strange, quoting Lapdog as saying that this report centering on incidents in 2012 shows that problems identified by 2015's CIRC report still haven't been fixed. How would acting after 2015 have changed what happened in 2012? Has anyone seen the original interview, possibly in French, to say if het Graun are misquoting?

Edit: oh it's changed since I started writing to attribute it to a UCI statement and not Lapdog personally. I'll go search later.


----------



## Bollo (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Meanwhile the Sky Repertory Theatre's production of Waiting for Froomo is receiving mixed reviews: "A play in which nothing happens, twice" P Prudhomme, ASO Times.


Very good. Very good indeed.


----------



## Tim Hall (7 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...team-sky-and-british-cycling-compensation-bid is a bit strange, quoting Lapdog as saying that this report centering on incidents in 2012 shows that problems identified by 2015's CIRC report still haven't been fixed. How would acting after 2015 have changed what happened in 2012? Has anyone seen the original interview, possibly in French, to say if het Graun are misquoting?
> 
> Edit: oh it's changed since I started writing to attribute it to a UCI statement and not Lapdog personally. I'll go search later.


Lapdog? A nickname for whom?


----------



## Tim Hall (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm guessing David Lappartient, UCI Pres. Thought to be in thrall to ASO, hence lapdog.


Ta.


----------



## mjr (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm guessing David Lappartient, UCI Pres. Thought to be in thrall to ASO, hence lapdog.


Also, one of the things offered by autocomplete if I start tapping out his surname.


----------



## david k (7 Mar 2018)

Do we think it's only sky who may have took advantage of the loopholes in medical exemptions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43316602


----------



## Hacienda71 (7 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> Do we think it's only sky who may have took advantage of the loopholes in medical exemptions?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43316602


I can't help think the Russian hackers have got exactly what they wanted. Sky have crossed the ethical line which doesn't surprise me given the marginal gains ethic (do anything legal to maximise your chances). Nobody has said they have broken the rules just used the system to their advantage , but who else has? It would be very interesting to see the entirety of TUE use across the professional peleton. Although the teams will all claim medical confidentiality.


----------



## Slick (7 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> Do we think it's only sky who may have took advantage of the loopholes in medical exemptions?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43316602


What's good for the goose......

Sky may be the required fall guys though as they were obviously the most successful.

Is that not the British way?


----------



## Bollo (7 Mar 2018)

Slick said:


> What's good for the goose......
> 
> Sky may be the required fall guys though as they were obviously the most successful.
> 
> Is that not the British way?


Lappartient is clearly enjoying a bit of easy Anglo-Saxon bashing, but Sky only have themselves to blame for claiming to be something they were not. Can you imagine what the (picking a team name absolutely at random) Astana's ethical policy looks like? Apart from maybe specifying acceptable currencies for bribes and the minimum depth to bury a dead prostitute, it's likely a pretty thin document.


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Lappartient is clearly enjoying a bit of easy Anglo-Saxon bashing, but Sky only have themselves to blame for claiming to be something they were not. Can you imagine what the (picking a team name absolutely at random) Astana's ethical policy looks like? Apart from maybe specifying acceptable currencies for bribes and the minimum depth to bury a dead prostitute, it's likely a pretty thin document.



Members of the MPCC you cynic. Well they were while it suited them....


----------



## david k (7 Mar 2018)

Hacienda71 said:


> I can't help think the Russian hackers have got exactly what they wanted. Sky have crossed the ethical line which doesn't surprise me given the marginal gains ethic (do anything legal to maximise your chances). Nobody has said they have broken the rules just used the system to their advantage , but who else has? It would be very interesting to see the entirety of TUE use across the professional peleton. Although the teams will all claim medical confidentiality.





Slick said:


> What's good for the goose......
> 
> Sky may be the required fall guys though as they were obviously the most successful.
> 
> Is that not the British way?



Agreed, I wonder to what extent others used TUEs in the same way, in fairness if one team has to justify it they all should


----------



## david k (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> They didn't have their data released by the Fancy Bears



Maybe not, but should we sent a precedent that teams who have been hacked have to answer questions, those who are not hacked are free to abuse TUEs?


----------



## Slick (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> They didn't have their data released by the Fancy Bears


If we are asking one team to come clean, surely everyone will be held eventually to the same scrutiny?


----------



## jowwy (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> They didn't have their data released by the Fancy Bears


Who didn't??


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Mar 2018)

A serious lack of hand signals from SirDave's PR bods:
https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-comments-by-uci-president-david-lappartient


----------



## Adam4868 (7 Mar 2018)

I think Fancy bears have released things in the past. Cancellara springs to mind,I maybe wrong though.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (7 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> I think Fancy bears have released things in the past. Cancellara springs to mind,I maybe wrong though.


Prisoner of the People's Republic of Judea?


----------



## Adam4868 (7 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> You could be right. I know Laura Trott's TUE for salbutamol was released, which surprised no one at all. Mo Farah was another. I'll have a search.
> 
> Edit... Yup, Cancellara too


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cancellara-cummings-fuglsang-featured-in-latest-fancy-bears-leak/


----------



## themosquitoking (7 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> A serious lack of hand signals from SirDave's PR bods:
> https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-sky-response-to-comments-by-uci-president-david-lappartient


Didn't SKY lose most of the evidence that was asked for?


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

david k said:


> Maybe not, but should we sent a precedent that teams who have been hacked have to answer questions, those who are not hacked are free to abuse TUEs?



The reason the DCMS investigated this matter is because of Sky's links to the publicly funded British Cycling. The significant question for them is whether or not public money was misused. Their findings have no legal weight within the sport but may affect future funding of the sport in the UK. A cynic might wonder if they were predisposed to find evidence of wrongdoing in order to justify spending cuts.

It's really up to the UCI and/or WADA to investigate the matter of TUE abuse properly, and to investigate all teams. And then take action if necessary.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

I've just seen the interview with Lappartient rather than just reading bits and bobs. I can't help but feel his new definition of 'cheating' will come back to haunt him. Doing a bit of reducto ad absurdum, you could argue that food falls into his definition of unacceptable as it improves a rider's performance relative to not having food.


Crackle said:


> Members of the MPCC you cynic. Well they were while it suited them....


Moi? D’ya know, I’d completely forgotten about the MPCC. They do those blue rubber wrist-band thingies, right?


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Moi? D’ya know, I’d completely forgotten about the MPCC. They do those blue rubber wrist-band thingies, right?



These ones?


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Their findings have no legal weight within the sport but may affect future funding of the sport in the UK. A cynic might wonder if they were predisposed to find evidence of wrongdoing in order to justify spending cuts.


That's an interesting idea. I was wondering if they were after even more power to appoint directors, viewing UK Sport's new power to be involved in the appointment process (part of the Code for Sports Governance) as insufficient.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> It's really up to the UCI and/or WADA to investigate the matter of TUE abuse properly, and to investigate all teams. And then take action if necessary.


even though UKAD have done that and found no wrong doing?? in team sky that is


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> That's an interesting idea. I was wondering if they were after even more power to appoint directors, viewing UK Sport's new power to be involved in the appointment process (part of the Code for Sports Governance) as insufficient.



I doubt they have the appetite to get involved at that level, tbh.

It's convenient when one of their mates gets a job as boss of an international sporting body though - the DCMS committee went very easy on Coe when they interviewed him.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> even though UKAD have done that and found no wrong doing?? in team sky that is



UKAD's investigation was into allegations that Wiggo used triamcinolone in competition, at the 2011 Dauphiné (the contents of the mysterious jiffy bag).

They have not investigated his TUE for use of triamcinolone out of competition and whether or not it was medically justified.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> UKAD's investigation was into allegations that Wiggo used triamcinolone in competition, at the 2012 Dauphiné (the contents of the mysterious jiffy bag).
> 
> They have not investigated his TUE for use of triamcinolone out of competition and whether or not it was medically justified.


pretty sure they investigated a lot more than just the jiffy bag and why would you investigate a TUE?


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> pretty sure they investigated a lot more than just the jiffy bag



There was a separate investigation looking into JTL's claims that Tramadol was being handed out like sweets at the 2012 World Championships but I can't remember if that came to anything.



> why would you investigate a TUE?



If a TUE has been obtained under false pretences, that is a clear anti-doping violation.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

Here's UKAD's statement about the jiffy bag - no mention of any other areas of investigation:
https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/articl...vestigation-into-the-package-delivered-to-tea


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cancellara-cummings-fuglsang-featured-in-latest-fancy-bears-leak/


Backdated TUEs for Cancellara but I think I remember at least one of the bee stings - but do the hanging judges here think a bee sting should end your stage race?

Undated stuff for Fuglsang saying MTB but with a Rio logo on it. Very strange. Anyone else thinking that might be faked? Has Vino upset some Russians lately?

Cummings for Salbutamol back when at Barloworld - a TUE that maybe wouldn't be needed now. The main interesting thing is it's another Barloworld 2009 rider like Froome... but is Impey's contaminated capsules case the closest that cohort has come to doping so far?


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> pretty sure they investigated a lot more than just the jiffy bag and why would you investigate a TUE?


It's not so much 'why investigate a TUE' as 'on what grounds can you investigate a TUE'. At the moment, the teams have been able to assert their own medical justification for anything with limited scrutiny or blow-back (until now), as long at they don't bang up against the prohibited or restricted lists.

As @Milkfloat and others have pointed out, anything not prohibited by the rules can't be against the rules. Expand the rules to close the loopholes, even if it prevents under-par riders from continuing. If a rider needs an asthma shot then tough, out of the race. The only risk would be that riders might come under pressure or choose to turn down treatment in order to remain in the race. In this case the real responsibility would reside with he team doctors under their duty of care to the riders, with the risk of being struck off.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Backdated TUEs for Cancellara but I think I remember at least one of the bee stings - but do the hanging judges here think a bee sting should end your stage race?


If it required treatment with a substance that's on a recognised list as a PED, then yes, it should end your race. Send him down.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Backdated TUEs for Cancellara but I think I remember at least one of the bee stings - but do the hanging judges here think a bee sting should end your stage race?



Older readers will remember Jonathan Vaughters quitting the 2001 Tour for just that reason - if he'd gone to the doctor complaining of knee pain, he could have had the injection, but the rules didn't allow injections for allergic reactions at the time.

If only he'd stayed at USPS, he would have had free rein over the medicine cabinet without risk of the officials interfering.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> If it required treatment with a substance that's on a recognised list as a PED, then yes, it should end your race. Send him down.


Did it require treatment with a PED or is it just that the treatment hospitals use is one that's a PED? Choices may be limited... but maybe at World Tour level, there's a strong argument that team doctors should be carrying the preferred medication for any riders with known allergies so there should be no second TUE for an in-race case.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Expand the rules to close the loopholes, even if it prevents under-par riders from continuing. If a rider needs an asthma shot then tough, out of the race. The only risk would be that riders might come under pressure or choose to turn down treatment in order to remain in the race.


Does anyone really think that's the only risk? I suspect that idea would fark over a lot of paralympians - but hey, survival of the fittest and no-one with any treatable chronic illness should even think of athletic competition. How about we send them all to camps(?)


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm imagining teams secretly launching angry bees at their riders from their team cars in order to justify a mega-dose of Wasp-Eze.


I'm fairly sure I remember reading of riders in the 1990s allegedly doing silly stuff like walking into walls or injuring each other in attempts to cause not-very-cycling-impairing injuries so they'd have an arguable medical reason for a steroid shot, but I don't remember whose book it was.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> There was a separate investigation looking into JTL's claims that Tramadol was being handed out like sweets at the 2012 World Championships but I can't remember if that came to anything.
> 
> 
> 
> If a TUE has been obtained under false pretences, that is a clear anti-doping violation.


how would they know if its false pretences when the UCI would need medical evidence to sign it off?? just asking questions here


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2018)

I agree with @Dogtrousers , I am not anti-TUE, I am anti the teams doctors and UCI having control over it. If a TUE is needed then it should be an independent body (WADA?) who investigate and grant/deny it.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Does anyone really think that's the only risk? I suspect that idea would fark over a lot of paralympians - but hey, survival of the fittest and no-one with any treatable chronic illness should even think of athletic competition. How about we send them all to camps(?)


That's hyperbole and you know it (and an indirect invocation of Godwin. And I don't like the inference). So, how do you deal with Oscar Pistorius' bid to run in the Olympics? At what point does his prosthesis cease to compensate for a disability and start to become an enhancement? And the converse - should Caster Semenya have to take hormones to be allowed to compete in women's races? The answer is that there are no simple answers, only decisions and consequences.

I'm quite happy to argue the other approach where we have a list of proscribed or restricted medicines. Outside that riders are free to take what the hell they want. I don't actually care that much, because I don't look to sports-people for validation or moral guidance.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> how would they know if its false pretences when the UCI would need medical evidence to sign it off?? just asking questions here



The system hasn't been rigorously policed in the past - it's largely a case of self-reporting. If the team doctor says the rider needs the meds, the UCI doctor will sign off the TUE without asking too many questions. Given the findings of the DCMS committee, UKAD may well decide to open an investigation into Wiggo's TUEs - and Lappartient is talking about getting the CDAF to investigate as well. I don't know how they would prove it, but if there are grounds to suspect wrongdoing, it should be investigated at least.

In some cases in the past, such as Lance's infamous saddle sore as mentioned by @Dogtrousers, evidence has surfaced of active complicity by the UCI to bend the rules. I don't think Lappartient would countenance anything like that, to be fair, but it's clear that the TUE system still needs further reforms to prevent potential abuse by teams.

I agree with @Milkfloat that any requests for TUEs should be investigated by an independent doctor, not a team employee, and preferably not a UCI employee either. In fact, I think I already said something similar upthread. Such measures would, however, be costly to implement.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> The system hasn't been rigorously policed in the past - it's largely a case of self-reporting. If the team doctor says the rider needs the meds, the UCI doctor will sign off the TUE without asking too many questions. Given the findings of the DCMS committee, UKAD may well decide to open an investigation into Wiggo's TUEs - and Lappartient is talking about getting the CDAF to investigate as well. I don't know how they would prove it, but if there are grounds to suspect wrongdoing, it should be investigated at least.
> 
> In some cases in the past, such as Lance's infamous saddle sore as mentioned by @Dogtrousers, evidence has surfaced of active complicity by the UCI to bend the rules. I don't think Lappartient would countenance anything like that, to be fair, but it's clear that the TUE system still needs further reforms to prevent potential abuse by teams.
> 
> I agree with @Milkfloat that any requests for TUEs should be investigated by an independent doctor, not a team employee, and preferably not a UCI employee either. In fact, I think I already said something similar upthread. Such measures would, however, be costly to implement.


so unless this has changed recently, this is what is required to get a TUE

*TUEs related to beta-2 agonist medication to treat asthma*
Inhaled beta-2 agonists are prohibited at all times and require a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), except for:


i. inhaled salbutamol when taken in dosages of less than 800 micrograms in any 12 hour period
ii. inhaled formoterol when taken in dosages of less than 54 micrograms in any 24 hour period
iii. inhaled salmeterol when taken in dosages of less than 200 micrograms in any 24 hour period
Inhaled terbutaline and inhaled indacterol are prohibited when taken in any dose and therefore require a TUE.

*The following documentation is required to support a TUE application related to the use of prohibited beta-2 agonist medication to treat asthma:*


*A complete and legible beta-2 agonist TUE application form*
*Lung function test results*
*Justification from the prescribing physician as to why permitted alternatives cannot be used*
Athletes should check Global DRO for confirmation about the prohibited or permitted status of their asthma medication.

_Standard TUE_
For all other substances and methods, a standard TUE form is required.
The following medical evidence is required:


*History of medical condition*
*Evidence of diagnosis (such as hospital review letters, test results, examinations and investigations)*
*Evidence of using alternative permitted medications*

--------------------------------------------------

So is that not enough evidence to get a TUE or do you think they should provide more? if so what?


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> That's hyperbole and you know it (and an indirect invocation of Godwin. And I don't like the inference).


Well, I didn't like the implication of almost any chronic condition getting riders disqualified. That felt like the view you were heading towards, that sport is only for the superhumans (in the old sense of the word).



Bollo said:


> So, how do you deal with Oscar Pistorius' bid to run in the Olympics? At what point does his prosthesis cease to compensate for a disability and start to become an enhancement?


I don't know and I think that's a much more difficult decision than a normally non-enhancing chronic illness treatment like salbutamol or even a one-off PED shot or tablet by A&E for a bee sting, so I'm surprised if you don't see prosthetic limbs as justifying a ban.



Bollo said:


> I'm quite happy to argue the other approach where we have a list of proscribed or restricted medicines. Outside that riders are free to take what the hell they want. I don't actually care that much, because I don't look to sports-people for validation or moral guidance.


It's not that I look to sports-people for validation or moral guidance, but more that I do care about whether people with chronic conditions are demonised.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> _Standard TUE_
> For all other substances and methods, a standard TUE form is required.
> The following medical evidence is required:
> 
> ...



In the case of Wiggins and the triamcinolone, it all hangs on the "evidence of diagnosis". If the diagnosis is made by the team doctor, what safeguards are in place to prevent fabrication of evidence? How stringent were the UCI in checking that evidence? These are the questions that an investigation would address.

This is why I think the diagnosis should be made by an independent doctor.


----------



## Maenchi (8 Mar 2018)

If the case hangs on team Sky's behaviour being found unethical, is 'hacking' not unethical being the digital equivalent of breaking and entering and then stealing.
Seems that if the 'fancy bears' find stuff big enough that get's overlooked,( just a passing thought)


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> In the case of Wiggins and the triamcinolone, it all hangs on the "evidence of diagnosis". If the diagnosis is made by the team doctor, what safeguards are in place to prevent fabrication of evidence? How stringent were the UCI in checking that evidence? These are the questions that an investigation would address.
> 
> This is why I think the diagnosis should be made by an independent doctor.


again proof of fabrication would be very hard to come by, especially as it states hospital review letters, test results (lung function) etc etc and again if the UCI signed all that off, how could you then call it cheating/fabricating whatever name people want to give it................theres too many grey areas and speculation here and if people want to put an asterix in their own head against wiggins tdf win, olympic medals yadda yadda yadda, then thats upto them......

but i cant see anything further coming from this at all and what would be the point????


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Well, I didn't like the implication of almost any chronic condition getting riders disqualified. That felt like the view you were heading towards, that sport is only for the superhumans (in the old sense of the word).
> 
> I don't know and I think that's a much more difficult decision than a normally non-enhancing chronic illness treatment like salbutamol or even a one-off PED shot or tablet by A&E for a bee sting, so I'm surprised if you don't see prosthetic limbs as justifying a ban.


When have I said that sport isn't for everyone!? But, by definition, sports at the _elite_ level are performed by _elite_ athletes and ultimately the whole point at that level is to determine which athlete has the greatest ability, be it through high VO2, lactic acid tolerance or longer legs. That's not eugenics, it's .... errr .... professional sport.

The use of prosthetic limbs _has_ been banned, at least when competing against non-para-athletes - see my previous comment - because there was no systematic method to ensure fairness. And that's where we are with the current case. As it stands there are legal mechanisms to game a competitive disadvantage (one leg -> asthma) into a competitive advantage (extra-springy blade -> asthma drugs with known or suspected PE properties). 

You took issue when I suggested effectively abolishing TUEs and banning the drugs that they covered. I'd be equally happy abolishing TUEs and allowing _any_ rider to take the same drugs. At least it would end this moral indignation and dissembling.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Maenchi said:


> If the case hangs on team Sky's behaviour being found unethical, is 'hacking' not unethical being the digital equivalent of breaking and entering and then stealing.
> Seems that if the 'fancy bears' find stuff big enough that get's overlooked,( just a passing thought)


Isn't it more like gaining entry (in a non-destructive way, like if they left a window open?) and photographing some documents from an unlocked filing cabinet? Still wrong, but trespass and espionage more than B&E or stealing.



Bollo said:


> When have I said that sport isn't for everyone!? But, by definition, sports at the _elite_ level are performed by _elite_ athletes and ultimately the whole point at that level is to determine which athlete has the greatest ability, be it through high VO2, lactic acid tolerance or longer legs. That's not eugenics, it's .... errr .... professional sport.


Not said but implied and there it is again. What ability is it testing, though? Cycling? Tactics? Or genetic qualities such as high VO2, lactic acid tolerance or not having asthma? I suggest that testing cycling and tactics are sport and the last is indeed eugenics and NOT the point of sport, elite level or not.

To be fair, I'm not sure that British Cycling or Team Sky understand the difference either, hence stuff like the unwarranted continuing emphasis on time trialling in this country and the part of the Sky plan that seems to be basically attempting to hire the most powerful riders and boringly grind along at max power whenever they think others can't match them. Some of the most entertaining bits of Team Sky riding are when Froome apparently just can't resist trying shoot out or striking at a less-than-theoretically-ideal time in the hope of surprising competitors.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> again proof of fabrication would be very hard to come by, especially as it states hospital review letters, test results (lung function) etc etc and again if the UCI signed all that off, how could you then call it cheating/fabricating whatever name people want to give it................theres too many grey areas and speculation here and if people want to put an asterix in their own head against wiggins tdf win, olympic medals yadda yadda yadda, then thats upto them......



Given the past record of the UCI, your faith in their procedures seems somewhat naive... or is it wilfully blind?


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Given the past record of the UCI, your faith in their procedures seems somewhat naive... or is it wilfully blind?


naive, wilfully blind or don't really care..........either way the same answer, team sky/wiggins have done what they were legally allowed to do within the rules of the TUE system that was set out and administered by the UCI to then investigate them for wrong doing would be a waste of every ones time and money

so why not just concentrate on closing all those loopholes and grey areas, so in the future things like this would be a lot harder to do..............everyone knew about the marginal gains mantra, but also everyone knew how the TUE system worked too.....i'm pretty sure its not just wiggins/sky that have crossed the imaginary ethical line, that people want to bump their gums about. Froome also had TUEs around the same time, so why aren't people calling him a cheat and asking for him to be investigated too.........


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5175950, member: 45"]I think that the fundamental problem is that the loopholes are being found in measures introduced to help. It's like tax manoeuvring -new legislation comes out to help one group, and immediately people start trying to work out how it can be made to benefit those it's not intended for.[/QUOTE]
but how do we know without speculation that wiggins/froome/sky etal benefited when there was no need..................................in shane suttons recent interview he stated that he seen the problems caused by wiggins illness after every training session.....

so who are we to judge and say he gained an unfair advantage for taking a drug that he wasn't needed? the difference with the lance case was that he sued and bullied people and gained huge amounts of money from a state sponsor after each tdf win


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> the difference with the lance case was that he sued and bullied people



No I'm not equating LA and BW but...

....scuttlebutt says Sky are rather keen on the use of the legal dept and Fran Millar certainly has form for some less than exemplary behaviour towards Sky's critics, not sure even LA would stoop to the depths she's plumbed.



jowwy said:


> gained huge amounts of money from a state sponsor



Hmm...very dodgy line between Sky and BC.....evidence of shared medicines....lottery funding........it's getting awful close to a plausibly deniable state funded doping program


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> No I'm not equating LA and BW but...
> 
> ....scuttlebutt says Sky are rather keen on the use of the legal dept and Fran Millar certainly has form for some less than exemplary behaviour towards Sky's critics, not sure even LA would stoop to the depths she's plumbed.


And in my experience, BC's HQ's standard practice is simply to ignore hard questions and shut up. I guess it's better than attempts to bully, but still not a model of openness and public service. I think the main reason there were any attempts to answer this time is that it is reasonably likely to influence the government who I think pay a big chunk of their income.


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> I think the main reason there were any attempts to answer this time is that it is reasonably likely to influence the government who I think pay a big chunk of their income



Yes, UK Sport have already threatened to withdraw BC's funding.

Shane Sutton calling on BW and Freeman to "just tell the truth" is interesting, kind of implies that they haven't been. Sutton has certainly been less than helpful to BW.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> No I'm not equating LA and BW but...
> 
> ....scuttlebutt says Sky are rather keen on the use of the legal dept and Fran Millar certainly has form for some less than exemplary behaviour towards Sky's critics, not sure even LA would stoop to the depths she's plumbed.
> 
> ...


team sky are not state sponsored and this isn't a BC team issue..........as far as i am aware


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> Yes, UK Sport have already threatened to withdraw BC's funding.
> 
> Shane Sutton calling on BW and Freeman to "just tell the truth" is interesting, kind of implies that they haven't been. Sutton has certainly been less than helpful to BW.


but isnt he calling on him to tell the truth on whether he used the drug out of competition and not just under TUE?


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> team sky are not state sponsored and this isn't a BC team issue..........as far as i am aware



But BC are state sponsored and both organisations have been slapped by the auditors for lack of seperation



jowwy said:


> but isnt he calling on him to tell the truth on whether he used the drug out of competition and not just under TUE?



I think he called for them to reveal what was administered and when.

It strikes me that the narrative is unravelling somewhat, initially the med was for allergies, lately it's become for asthma.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Not said but implied and there it is again. What ability is it testing, though? Cycling? Tactics? Or genetic qualities such as high VO2, lactic acid tolerance or not having asthma? I suggest that testing cycling and tactics are sport and the last is indeed eugenics and NOT the point of sport, elite level or not.


OK, I'll keep it short this time. 

Are you saying that genetic factors do not or should not play a role in the success of a professional sportsperson? 

What is THE POINT of sport, if sport is only allowed to have one point across all ranges of ability and participation?


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> But BC are state sponsored and both organisations have been slapped by the auditors for lack of seperation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i am not aware of the fact the narrative as changed at all.............bradley was never interviewed by the MPs so his narrative as always been the same. unless you can post up evidence of the differing narratives you speak of

also BC wasn't paying bradleys wages, team sky was....so again no financial gain, unlike lance who gained millions


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> i am not aware of the fact the narrative as changed at all.............bradley was never interviewed by the MPs so his narrative as always been the same. unless you can post up evidence of the differing narratives you speak of



The TUE was issued for a pollen allergy

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ce-team-sky-ethical-line-report-a8241186.html



> For me, I’d have asthma attacks



It's only recently there's been reference to asthma, previously it was for an allergy. Now pollen allergy and asthma are closely related so in some ways it's understandable BUT the persistent inconsistencies begin to stack up. The problem is you can't legally have a TUE to prevent a condition (allergic reaction) but you can for an exiting condition, asthma.



jowwy said:


> also BC wasn't paying bradleys wages, team sky was....so again no financial gain,



ICBW but I don't think I am, at the time the funding from BC wasn't dependent on an athletes outside earnings as it is now, so yes all the athletes in the Olympic team were being part funded by BC. Incidentally BW was never paid wages, he wasn't an employee, he was a contractor.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> The TUE was issued for a pollen allergy
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ce-team-sky-ethical-line-report-a8241186.html
> 
> ...


But bradley wasn't in the olympic team at the time of these TUEs he was an employee of team sky

also in that publication you attached it states for pollen and asthma......so again im not aware of any change in that stance


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> at the time of these TUEs he was an employee of team sky



I reckon you're going to tell me Sir Dave was an employee of Sky at the time.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> I reckon you're going to tell me Sir Dave was an employee of Sky at the time.


we are talking Sir brad here, not mentioned Sir Dave................who Sir Dave is paid by has nothing to do with Sir Brad

LA was paid and employed by a state sponsor, therefore gained financially from it and it was the State that then done for lance, until the state got involved, lance would never have owned up...........


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> we are talking Sir brad here, not mentioned Sir Dave................who Sir Dave is paid by has nothing to do with Sir Brad
> 
> LA was paid and employed by a state sponsor, therefore gained financially from it and it was the State that then done for lance, until the state got involved, lance would never have owned up...........



It's all much of a muchness. Sir Dave was a consultant, Sir Brad was a contractor, neither were employees.

LA was not employed by the state, he was a contractor to Tailwind Sports, who had a sponsorship with a state owned company.

Anyway this all a bit irrelevant, you're obviously a fan jowwy, I can understand that, I was and remain a Pantani fan.


----------



## jowwy (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> It's all much of a muchness. Sir Dave was a consultant, Sir Brad was a contractor, neither were employees.
> 
> LA was not employed by the state, he was a contractor to Tailwind Sports, who had a sponsorship with a state owned company.
> 
> Anyway this all a bit irrelevant, you're obviously a fan jowwy, I can understand that, I was and remain a Pantani fan.


I have always stated I am a fan


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> Are you saying that genetic factors do not or should not play a role in the success of a professional sportsperson?


Should not. Maybe only should not determine, rather than should not play a role, but basically should not.



Bollo said:


> What is THE POINT of sport, if sport is only allowed to have one point across all ranges of ability and participation?


To see who plays each sport best.

We could find out in a farking lab who has the biggest VO2 max or who can tolerate the strongest drugs best. It's extremely boring to see that repeatedly rehashed on the roads, mixed a bit with who's best at testing for that and who's got the biggest budget. Let's see some bike racing instead.


----------



## Bollo (8 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Should not. Maybe only should not determine, rather than should not play a role, but basically should not.
> 
> 
> To see who plays each sport best.
> ...


You'll not be surprised that I disagree with both answers, but this is heading off-topic and doing no one any good. I'm out.


----------



## grellboy (8 Mar 2018)

Cycling about to get a caning on Talksport. Matt Lawton on from 8pm.


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Froome has had a pop at Lappartient, said "yar boo sucks, I can ride so I will" and pointed out that any wins he achieves will stand, because any ban will start at the time of the verdict and will not be retrospective. So it's in his interest to drag things out. No, he didn't actually say that, he said "I’m obviously doing everything I can to get this resolved as quickly as possible". But he may have had his fingers crossed behind his back.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chr...his-concerns-in-person-not-through-the-media/



Just read that. Froome obviously thinks the days of a UCI president being able to end a rider's career are over. Be interesting to see if he's right.

If Hein's grave has a cadence sensor in it, it'll be off the scale.


----------



## Maenchi (8 Mar 2018)

rules versus ethics
and 
legal versus image


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

And I don't reckon Geraint is on Sir Brad's Christmas card list any more after



> Maybe people will disagree with that but, in my eyes, if you suffer so severely from asthma or allergies that over the counter medications, or medications that don't require TUEs such as salbutamol can't control, its unfortunate but maybe your body isn't built for the rigours of professional sport



I wonder what a certain Romandie winner thinks of that.


----------



## Adam4868 (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> And I don't reckon Geraint is on Sir Brad's Christmas card list any more after
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what a certain Romandie winner thinks of that.


To be fair theres more to that interview...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/wales/43319799


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> And I don't reckon Geraint is on Sir Brad's Christmas card list any more...



In an idle moment, I did wonder if Thomas might be the anonymous source the DCMS spoke to. For the source to be credible, it has to be someone who had access behind the scenes at races, so a rider or soigneur or maybe even the chef or bus driver (though I've met one of the Team Sky bus drivers and he didn't strike me as a grass). It's also likely to be someone who is vociferously anti-doping, and Thomas certainly fits that bill. On the other hand, he's been a good mate of Wiggo for years, so would he dob him in? There have also been doubts expressed about Thomas's own purity in some quarters.

Anyway, this really is delving into the realms of speculation so I won't pursue this line of thought any further.


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> To be fair theres more to that interview...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/wales/43319799



It's a good interview, I like Geraint, I don't necessarily agree with him here but he does come across as genuine, not scripted. I do wish he'd followed through on his leave Sky thing. I reckon he could have been a top classics rider.



smutchin said:


> In an idle moment, I did wonder if Thomas might be the anonymous source the DCMS spoke to. For the source to be credible, it has to be someone who had access behind the scenes at races, so a rider or soigneur or maybe even the chef or bus driver (though I've met one of the Team Sky bus drivers and he didn't strike me as a grass). It's also likely to be someone who is vociferously anti-doping, and Thomas certainly fits that bill. On the other hand, he's been a good mate of Wiggo for years, so would he dob him in? There have also been doubts expressed about Thomas's own purity in some quarters.
> 
> Anyway, this really is delving into the realms of speculation so I won't pursue this line of thought any further.



My thought was Fabio Bartalucci, but I can't think why he'd go for anonymity.


----------



## Adam4868 (8 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> In an idle moment, I did wonder if Thomas might be the anonymous source the DCMS spoke to. For the source to be credible, it has to be someone who had access behind the scenes at races, so a rider or soigneur or maybe even the chef or bus driver (though I've met one of the Team Sky bus drivers and he didn't strike me as a grass). It's also likely to be someone who is vociferously anti-doping, and Thomas certainly fits that bill. On the other hand, he's been a good mate of Wiggo for years, so would he dob him in? There have also been doubts expressed about Thomas's own purity in some quarters.
> 
> Anyway, this really is delving into the realms of speculation so I won't pursue this line of thought any further.


Id have never thought of Thomas as I see him as someone who wouldnt have a bad word to say about anybody.Allround likeable bloke !
There again I dont really.like the idea of a "annonymous source" either come out yourself or its not credible to me.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> My thought was Fabio Bartalucci



Yes, he's a strong candidate.


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

The other obvious candidate is Leinders, you can see why the DCMS would not reveal they'd spoken to him.


----------



## Adam4868 (8 Mar 2018)

It could have been Froomey before his adverse episode.......or it could be a figure of speech.


----------



## Siclo (8 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> It could have been Froomey before his adverse episode....




Can't see it....Michelle would have had to tweet it.


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> There again I dont really.like the idea of a "annonymous source" either come out yourself or its not credible to me.



Whistleblowing has a very important place in British law, including in investigations such as these.

In this case, there's no reason to doubt the ability of the select committee to assess the credibility of the witness correctly. It says:

_The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation._​
Anyway, I should imagine anyone who knows the team/management structure, and knows who was employed by Sky, during the period in question would be able to deduce who the whistleblower is, given the very specific knowledge they demonstrate in their evidence.

There is clearly enough verifiable content in the witness's evidence to establish their credibility - and remember the committee does know who it is. Given their testimony doesn't come across as much of a grievance, and is very much presented as simply clarifying matters and setting the record straight on certain points, then the select committee has obviously made the correct decision to give credence to and publish it and to use it in determining its findings...... and whilst I am also very curious to know the identity, I'm prepared to delegate making this judgment to the select committee, and for the identity to remain undisclosed to protect the individual.


----------



## smutchin (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> There is clearly enough verifiable content in the witness's evidence to establish their credibility - and remember the committee does know who it is. Given their testimony doesn't come across as much of a grievance, and is very much presented as simply clarifying matters and setting the record straight on certain points, then the select committee has obviously made the correct decision to give credence to and publish it and to use it in determining its findings



I think they have come to a sincerely held view based on their understanding of the available evidence. My only problem is that certain aspects of the report, as noted upthread, show the limits of their understanding.

Either way, there are enough known and indisputable facts to cast serious doubt on the ethical standing of the team. They've definitely got that bit right.


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> My only problem is that certain aspects of the report, as noted upthread, show the limits of their understanding.



A valid point, but I would say those aspects aren't that significant or material to the determining factors in reaching justifiable conclusions. 

I would even suggest that with more specialised knowledge, and with a more judicial approach, they would have been even more damning and for instance would have found that WADA rules were indeed breached by the fraudulent TUE applications.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Mar 2018)

SKY are lucky that Travis Tygart wasnae on their case


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> A valid point, but I would say those aspects aren't that significant or material to the determining factors in reaching justifiable conclusions.
> 
> I would even suggest that with more specialised knowledge, and with a more judicial approach, they would have been even more damning and for instance would have found that WADA rules were indeed breached by the fraudulent TUE applications.


your only speculating on the Fraudulent TUE applications....................Shane sutton has stated that he has seen 1st hand how bradley suffers after hard efforts due to his illness/asthma/allergies, but maybe you missed that bit.

anyway is no longer up to us to speculate and read into the findings of the selective committee to boost our told you so rhetoric, like some have been doing in this thread............


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> SKY are lucky that Travis Tygart wasnae on their case


https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/...verup-of-sexual-abuse-by-coaches-9ffb9277a5f3


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> Fran Millar certainly has form for some less than exemplary behaviour towards Sky's critics, not sure even LA would stoop to the depths she's plumbed.



Blimey. It must be bad if what she's done is worse than wilfully misleading and exploiting millions of cancer sufferers, and suing, threatening, bullying, intimidating and deliberately ruining the careers and business interests of innocent people. What's she done?


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/...verup-of-sexual-abuse-by-coaches-9ffb9277a5f3



Indeed - as Armstrong found, you wouldn't want someone that ruthless or lawyerly going after you, so Sky will be quaking in their boots even more if Tygart starts sniffing around the case.


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Blimey. wilfully misleading and exploiting millions of cancer sufferers,


That's a bit harsh isn't it - i'm pretty sure livestrong have helped an enormous amount of cancer sufferers through their illness and still do. Saying that LA exploited them is very harsh indeed. Mislead them on being a clean rider yes.........


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Indeed - as Armstrong found, you wouldn't want someone that ruthless or lawyerly going after you, so Sky will be quaking in their boots even more if Tygart starts sniffing around the case.


i wonder if the swimmers of the US would agree with you there..................also tygart is the CEO of USADA or did that escape you, why would USADA sniff round a UK cycling team


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> i wonder if the swimmers of the US would agree with you there



What would they disagree with.......that he's a ruthless lawyer who gets results for his paymasters? You do realise I haven't condoned, or even commented or implied a view on the morality of, his conduct at USA Swimming.........For the record, it sticks in my craw how lawyers will often defend or obfuscate the indefensible.



jowwy said:


> also tygart is the CEO of USADA or did that escape you, why would USADA sniff round a UK cycling team



WADA, UKAD or the UCI might consider engaging him as a consultant, or offering an appointment as part of their legal teams. Maybe he fancies a change from USADA CEO........


----------



## Adam4868 (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> Whistleblowing has a very important place in British law, including in investigations such as these.
> 
> In this case, there's no reason to doubt the ability of the select committee to assess the credibility of the witness correctly. It says:
> 
> ...


I get what your saying but for me id prefer to hear or know who it's coming from.Did this anonymous source not say something along the lines of not just Wiggins but a smaller group of riders were taking things out of competition ? 
Maybe just the way my mind works but I'm very black and white so to speak.Name them or put your own name to it or I don't buy it.I hope I'm not wrong....


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> What would they disagree with.......that he's a ruthless lawyer who gets results for his paymasters? You do realise I haven't condoned, or even commented or implied a view on the morality of, his conduct at USA Swimming.........For the record, it sticks in my craw how lawyers will often defend or obfuscate the indefensible.


maybe they would disagree with the fact that he gets results or does he only get results when he wants them known to the public.......in the case of the US swimmers it looks like he was illicit in the cover up

*Four months later (!) the National Board of Review heard the case against Chocron (in absentia) and banned him from USA Swimming. Tygart served as the prosecuting attorney for USA Swimming throughout this internal board of review (a kangaroo court where the organization serves as prosecutor, judge, and jury).

Naturally, USA Swimming immediately notified the public about the sexual predator in the midst of their sport…

HA, just kidding! The review board said nothing to the public, and the man who would later be charged with overseeing anti-doping in the United States remained silent (which he has done to this day). Remaining silent is giving explicit aid to the coverup of these events.*


----------



## Foghat (9 Mar 2018)

And given all that, like @Marmion said, Wiggins, Brailsford et al and Sky are lucky that Tygart isn't hunting them down.......


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> And given all that, like @Marmion said, Wiggins, Brailsford et al and Sky are lucky that Tygart isn't hunting them down.......


he would prob just cover it up like he did back then.........ah but this is more high profile, so maybe he wont......


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> i wonder if the swimmers of the US would agree with you there..................also tygart is the CEO of USADA or did that escape you, why would USADA sniff round a UK cycling team


Pretty sure Sky has riders who race on US licences, so doesn't that give them some scope? Riding for a Kazakh team didn't save Lance.


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Pretty sure Sky has riders who race on US licences, so doesn't that give them some scope? Riding for a Kazakh team didn't save Lance.


I don't know does it??? Who??

I'm sure when LA ,won his 7 TDF he was riding for US postal.........then on his comeback he rode for Astana, but his case was already high profile and the radar of USADA way before then, they did however use his biological passport during his comeback, to in the end catch him.

But I don't think wiggins as ever returned a drug anomaly, unlike JTL, Froome, contador, valverde, pantani and quite a few others


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> ...unlike JTL, Froome, contador, valverde, pantani and *quite a few others*


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Actually, boring and nitpicky though it may be, JTL never did return an AAF did he? It was all biological passport stuff wasn't it? Not that it matters.


Did I say AAF? I believe i said a drug anomaly, which would include a biological passport anomaly


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> But I don't think wiggins as ever returned a drug anomaly, unlike JTL, Froome, contador, valverde, pantani and quite a few others


If he returned a drug anomaly and explained it to the satisfaction of the tribunal, we'll never know unless the bears fancy it, so I think that's a silly thing to write.

I'm sure Wiggins will say he never returned a drug needle, sorry, anomaly...


----------



## Siclo (9 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> But I don't think wiggins as ever returned a drug anomaly, unlike JTL, Froome, contador, valverde, pantani



Oy, Il Pirata never tested positive


----------



## jowwy (9 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> If he returned a drug anomaly and explained it to the satisfaction of the tribunal, we'll never know unless the bears fancy it, so I think that's a silly thing to write.
> 
> I'm sure Wiggins will say he never returned a drug needle, sorry, anomaly...


Im pretty sure the "in the know" person would have told the select committee if he had....

And then you could all jump on that band wagon aswell then.....all aboard


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Mar 2018)

Did they not think having Team SKY coloured medication would arouse some suspicion?


----------



## Bollo (9 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> Did they not think having Team SKY coloured medication would arouse some suspicion?
> View attachment 399232


It can’t be Sky’s as it claims to be accurate.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (9 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> It can’t be Sky’s as it claims to be accurate.


I was thinking that Accu was short for Accusation


----------



## rich p (10 Mar 2018)

Marmion said:


> I was thinking that Accu was short for Accusation


Or Accupuncture but that involves needles and we know Brad has never had an injection...


----------



## smutchin (10 Mar 2018)

rich p said:


> Or Accupuncture but that involves needles and we know Brad has never had an injection...



I bet he doesn’t inhale either.


----------



## Siclo (10 Mar 2018)

http://road.cc/content/news/238468-froome-backs-brailsford-says-team-sky-has-evolved-early-days

Froome backing Sir Dave, Sir Dave backing Froome, starting to look like a last stand


----------



## Milzy (10 Mar 2018)




----------



## Adam4868 (10 Mar 2018)

Siclo said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/238468-froome-backs-brailsford-says-team-sky-has-evolved-early-days
> 
> Froome backing Sir Dave, Sir Dave backing Froome, starting to look like a last stand


Who of the team is not backing him ?


----------



## Siclo (11 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> Who of the team is not backing him ?



No-one, at least publicly. I just thought it was amusing for Froome to be so quick to defend Sir Dave, IIRC he wasn't quite so keen not too long ago


----------



## Milzy (11 Mar 2018)

In time Wiggo and Froome may sue certain people for liable. They will have the last laugh.


----------



## mjr (12 Mar 2018)

Milzy said:


> In time Wiggo and Froome may sue certain people for liable. They will have the last laugh.


Whoever they sue for that will have the last laugh at the bad spelling


----------



## jowwy (12 Mar 2018)

http://road.cc/content/news/238513-...-blame-anti-doping-rules-not-team-sky-and-sir


Some back tracking here from the head of the select committee and a huge amount of sense spoken by a 5 time gold medalist


----------



## Milzy (12 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Whoever they sue for that will have the last laugh at the bad spelling


Damn it’s libel isn’t it? I can’t spell with auto correct on or off.


----------



## roadrash (12 Mar 2018)

well said Sir Steve Redgrave,


----------



## smutchin (12 Mar 2018)

Redgrave is only saying what several of us have said in this thread already.

Also worth bearing in mind that the Wiggins TUE case dates back to the good old days of Pat McQuaid's stewardship of the UCI. Several things have changed since then, although the UCI is still far from perfect.

Lappartient talks a good game but it's too early yet to say if he has the chops to carry through on his reforming agenda.


----------



## roadrash (12 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> Lappartient talks a good game but it's too early yet to say if he has the chops to carry through on his reforming agenda.




yeah, I agree, wont believe it until it happens


----------



## smutchin (12 Mar 2018)

In fact, I'd say Redgrave has completely missed the point (although to be fair he's not the only one), as this line demonstrates:



> "To me, it's black and white,” he said. “It's either a positive drug test and you are cheating or you're not cheating and everything's okay.



FFS.

And this isn't a "grey area which has been introduced recently" as Redgrave seems to think - David Millar and Tyler Hamilton have admitted to abusing the TUE system to take Kenacort 20 years ago and I doubt it was a new thing even then.

As for solving the problem of TUE abuse, UKAD have been trying to get triamcinolone banned outright for ages but WADA have resisted so far. Probably because WADA agree with those like @mjr who don't want to see athletes with genuine chronic medical conditions punished for the crimes of others. Geraint Thomas is more of the view that TUEs are never justified. It's a tricky one, but yes, the policing of TUEs needs to be as tight as possible to avoid any of these potential "grey areas". File under "No shoot, Sherlock."


----------



## FishFright (12 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/238513-...-blame-anti-doping-rules-not-team-sky-and-sir
> 
> 
> Some back tracking here from the head of the select committee and a huge amount of sense spoken by a 5 time gold medalist



So this time a politician is to be believed ? I wonder why that is ?


----------



## Siclo (12 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> David Millar and Tyler Hamilton have admitted to abusing the TUE system to take Kenacort 20 years ago and I doubt it was a new thing even then.



And it's exactly why Geert Leinders was given a lifetime ban, beneficiaries included Steven de Jongh.

I couldn't think where Sky got the idea.


----------



## smutchin (12 Mar 2018)

View: https://twitter.com/lionelbirnie/status/973194738831642624


Now, someone remind me which sport Richard Freeman was working in before he joined Sky...


----------



## mjr (12 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> View: https://twitter.com/lionelbirnie/status/973194738831642624
> 
> 
> Now, someone remind me which sport Richard Freeman was working in before he joined Sky...



Oh well. It's not as if any British Cycling executive officers have recently come from that sport


----------



## mjr (12 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> As for solving the problem of TUE abuse, UKAD have been trying to get triamcinolone banned outright for ages but WADA have resisted so far. Probably because WADA agree with those like @mjr who don't want to see athletes with genuine chronic medical conditions punished for the crimes of others.


But even I'm uncomfortable with triamcinolone because there appear to be alternatives without the performance enhancing attributes for most of its uses... but we're really back to the question of how you avoid having doctors working in the sport who will pick the PED over the non-PE drug to make a pushy team boss happy.


----------



## jowwy (12 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> So this time a politician is to be believed ? I wonder why that is ?


And were did i say i believed him......i just said he was back tracking. 

Best you read my post again


----------



## 400bhp (13 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> But even I'm uncomfortable with triamcinolone because there appear to be alternatives without the performance enhancing attributes for most of its uses... but we're really back to the question of how you avoid having doctors working in the sport who will pick the PED over the non-PE drug to make a pushy team boss happy.



Independent doctors accredited by the UCI. Not dissimilar to a process we have in my line of work.


----------



## smutchin (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> i just said he was back tracking.



Is he back-tracking though? It looks to me like he's just reiterating what he said first time round.

Of course, he doesn't do himself any favours with his confused thinking - what he's describing as an "ethical line" being crossed is actually an infringement of the rules. In that respect, Redgrave is correct that it's black and white - it's either cheating (obtaining a TUE under false pretences) or it's not cheating (the TUE was obtained for legitimate medical reasons).


----------



## Milkfloat (13 Mar 2018)

400bhp said:


> Independent doctors accredited by the UCI. Not dissimilar to a process we have in my line of work.



I would even suggest WADA doctors as the UCI history is not exactly squeaky clean.


----------



## smutchin (13 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> UCI history is not exactly squeaky clean



Outrageous slur!


----------



## FishFright (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> And were did i say i believed him......i just said he was back tracking.
> 
> Best you read my post again



Should I go back and quote what you said about the trustworthiness of politicians or would that spoil things for you ?


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> Should I go back and quote what you said about the trustworthiness of politicians or would that spoil things for you ?


But did i say i believed him???


----------



## FishFright (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> But did i say i believed him???



Enough to use him to back up your mancrush, let's be honest you'd quote Trump if he said Wiggo had a nice bum


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> Enough to use him to back up your mancrush, let's be honest you'd quote Trump if he said Wiggo had a nice bum


So because i have a different opinion to you, i have a mancrush

Grow up will you. Not everyone believes the rubbish


----------



## hopless500 (13 Mar 2018)

FishFright said:


> Enough to use him to back up your mancrush, let's be honest you'd quote Trump if he said Wiggo had a nice bum


I didn't snigger, honest


----------



## roadrash (13 Mar 2018)

I did


----------



## rich p (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> So because i have a different opinion to you, i have a mancrush
> 
> Grow up will you. Not everyone believes the rubbish


I can't remember if you've dealt satisfactorily with the thing that sticks in my craw. The fact that Wiggins persuasively wrote in his autobiog. that he had never had an injection except for vaccines but that has been shown to be am outright lie.
FWIW, I still remember using that written section as a 'proof' of his cleanliness back in 2012, to friends who questioned him. It makes me look slightly foolish now and, believe me, I don't need any help.


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

rich p said:


> I can't remember if you've dealt satisfactorily with the thing that sticks in my craw. The fact that Wiggins persuasively wrote in his autobiog. that he had never had an injection except for vaccines but that has been shown to be am outright lie.
> FWIW, I still remember using that written section as a 'proof' of his cleanliness back in 2012, to friends who questioned him. It makes me look slightly foolish now and, believe me, I don't need any help.


We can all look foolish on times.....i defended tiger woods until he came out with the truth.

For me, until some one comes out with 100% proof of performance enhancing drug taking from wiggo and team sky. Then i will carry on backing him......

An MPs report without facts means diddly squat to me


----------



## rich p (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> We can all look foolish on times.....i defended tiger woods until he came out with the truth.
> 
> For me, until some one comes out with 100% proof of performance enhancing drug taking from wiggo and team sky. Then i will carry on backing him......
> 
> An MPs report without facts means diddly squat to me


I think that 'something foolish' and 'a blatant lie' are a few kilometers apart but I'll not pursue it. 
I know that you may not remember but we were all Wiggo fans back in the day but can now see that he was less than economical with the truth. That's why we're disappointed because we've been let down.


----------



## Maenchi (13 Mar 2018)

'back in the day'
Wiggo's achievements were before my interest in cycling was reignited didn't dig his style much or his name.....and i'm still unsure


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

rich p said:


> I think that 'something foolish' and 'a blatant lie' are a few kilometers apart but I'll not pursue it.
> I know that you may not remember but we were all Wiggo fans back in the day but can now see that he was less than economical with the truth. That's why we're disappointed because we've been let down.


I didnt say wiggo did something foolish though.......read my post. I said we can all look foolish on times in reply to the post above mine. I looked foolish backing woods.

Look we all have an opinion. The part i hate is when people post abuse and memes, just because i dont agree with their opinion................like i said in a previous post, brexiteers were called young thick and stupid, but remoaners thought they were clever, intelligent know it alls. Now wiggo backers are being called apologists just for not agreeing with them


----------



## rich p (13 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> I didnt say wiggo did something foolish though.......read my post. I said we can all look foolish on times in reply to the post above mine. I looked foolish backing woods.
> 
> Look we all have an opinion. The part i hate is when people post abuse and memes, just because i dont agree with their opinion................like i said in a previous post, brexiteers were called young thick and stupid, but remoaners thought they were clever, intelligent know it alls. Now wiggo backers are being called apologists just for not agreeing with them


Okay, but you're still avoiding the issue that Wiggins lied about the injection issue.
What is your opinion on that particular point? Forgetfulness on his part or a deliberate lie or something else?


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

rich p said:


> Okay, but you're still avoiding the issue that Wiggins lied about the injection issue.
> What is your opinion on that particular point? Forgetfulness on his part or a deliberate lie or something else?


I word say forget fullness......but then im not wiggo and did he even write that book? Did the ghost writer miss quote him? Who knows..............


----------



## jowwy (13 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5181629, member: 43827"]Jowwy, you know they won't be happy until you confess everything, so give in now!

View attachment 399916
[/QUOTE]
My name is *Maximus Decimus Meridius*, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.


----------



## fossyant (13 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> But even I'm uncomfortable with triamcinolone because there appear to be alternatives without the performance enhancing attributes for most of its uses... but we're really back to the question of how you avoid having doctors working in the sport who will pick the PED over the non-PE drug to make a pushy team boss happy.



This exactly - It's not something normally used as a medication. It's a PED to the limits of what's acceptable. Money game again, and SKY were cheating barstewards within the 'rules'.


----------



## mjr (14 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> Look we all have an opinion. The part i hate is when people post abuse and memes, just because i dont agree with their opinion................like i said in a previous post, brexiteers were called young thick and stupid, but remoaners thought they were clever, intelligent know it alls.


You hate it when people post abusive memes, but you post abusive memes like "remoaners" being "know it alls"


----------



## smutchin (14 Mar 2018)

I thought it was more the case that "Brexiteers" were OLD thick and stupid, but never mind... that's for a different thread.

I'm not sure I'd hold up Brexiteers as a good example of people who have been vindicated either. Although there are some valid points of comparison - Wiggo's TUE situation seems about as clear as the Irish border situation.


----------



## jowwy (14 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> You hate it when people post abusive memes, but you post abusive memes like "remoaners" being "know it alls"


no.......thats not what i posted, i said THEY THOUGHT they are know it alls and i havent posted any memes

meme

an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations.


----------



## jowwy (14 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> I thought it was more the case that "Brexiteers" were OLD thick and stupid, but never mind... that's for a different thread.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd hold up Brexiteers as a good example of people who have been vindicated either. Although there are some valid points of comparison - Wiggo's TUE situation seems about as clear as the Irish border situation.


so brexiteers are not a good example of people who have been vindicated. Why is that then? we aint even left the EU yet so how can they be vindicated?

still awaiting the emergency budget and tax raises post the referendum result

and wiggo's TUE is pretty simple, doc said to UCI, brad needs this, doc produced relevant proof of need, UCI signed it off..........seems pretty clear to me and all done under the RULES


----------



## Bollo (14 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> and wiggo's TUE is pretty simple, doc said to UCI, brad needs this, doc produced relevant proof of need, UCI signed it off..........seems pretty clear to me and all done under the RULES


...SirDave tells Doc to make up something so SirBrad can go faster, Doc produced dubious proof of need, UCI not especially fussed about spitting in the soup .......

I actually agree the full story has yet to come out, but I can't see what further information will leave Wiggin's reputation smelling any fresher than it does at present. There are too many 'unfortunate episodes' and 'memory slips' to feel charitable just because a rider carries a (soon to be blue) British passport.


----------



## User169 (14 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> ...SirDave tells Doc to make up something so SirBrad can go faster, Doc produced dubious proof of need, UCI not especially fussed about spitting in the soup .......
> 
> I actually agree the full story has yet to come out, but I can't see what further information will leave Wiggin's reputation smelling any fresher than it does at present. There are too many 'unfortunate episodes' and 'memory slips' to feel charitable just because a rider carries a (soon to be blue) British passport.



Well, Bradders is going to have his say like soon, any minute now.....


----------



## smutchin (14 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> so brexiteers are not a good example of people who have been vindicated. Why is that then?



Two things:
1. You were the one who brought up the entirely irrelevant matter of Brexit in this thread (TWICE*) and your implication was obvious so stop being disingenuous.
2. I'm not going to continue this line of discussion in this thread. Any further mentions of Brexit will have me reaching for the report button.



*Everyone thought better than to respond to it the first time but you couldn't resist repeating it. There's a word for deliberately provocative repetition of controversial points with the intent of goading people into arguing and sidetracking the discussion down irrelevant avenues.


----------



## mjr (14 Mar 2018)

jowwy said:


> no.......thats not what i posted, i said THEY THOUGHT they are know it alls and i havent posted any memes
> 
> meme
> 
> an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations.


You reposted the meme and yes it's a meme - a piece of text copied and spread rapidly by Internet users.

So would it be fine if someone claims wiggo apologists thought they were clever, intelligent know it alls back when the first rumours were surfacing?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (14 Mar 2018)

*Mod note: *

As has been suggested, this is not the thread for discussion of, or bickering about Brexit. Not the place for bickering about memes either.

Back on topic from here please. Any further off topic discussion may be removed.


----------



## jowwy (14 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> .*..SirDave tells Doc to make up something so SirBrad can go faster, Doc produced dubious proof of need, UCI not especially fussed about spitting in the soup .......*
> 
> I actually agree the full story has yet to come out, but I can't see what further information will leave Wiggin's reputation smelling any fresher than it does at present. There are too many 'unfortunate episodes' and 'memory slips' to feel charitable just because a rider carries a (soon to be blue) British passport.


and were is your proof that the above highlighted line is true??


----------



## jowwy (14 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> You reposted the meme and yes it's a meme - a piece of text copied and spread rapidly by Internet users.
> 
> So would it be fine if someone claims wiggo apologists thought they were clever, intelligent know it alls back when the first rumours were surfacing?


actually no....because all i have done is give my own opinion of the so called reports...............and for that i have been called an apologist, just because i don't agree with their opinion


----------



## Adam4868 (14 Mar 2018)

Too much hearsay and nothing new,I was out a while ago.


----------



## mjr (14 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Come on Froomey. Give us something to talk about.


Great performance at Tirreno-Adriatico, huh? 11th place so early in the season so must be dopey. Or only 11th place so clearly can't be dopey or is no good at doping. Or something.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (15 Mar 2018)

*Mod note:*

This must be some kind of record, putting in two notes in less than a page.

It seems that some are taking this whole issue far too much to heart. Maybe it's time to think about stepping away for a little while?

If you do decide to stick with it please discuss *without *dishing out insults. Anyone who can't manage that may be removed from the conversation.

Thankyou.


----------



## booze and cake (15 Mar 2018)

OK moving on, a nice summary over on INRG yesterday. http://inrng.com/2018/03/tue-reform-cortisol-tests/

Basically wait and see what happens over the coming weeks and months, but the bit that brought water to my eyes was this " in the late 1990s’ one notorious French rider would rub rock salt into his scrotum until it was red and visit a doctor claiming the soreness was down to chafing shorts and asking for some cortisone cream by prescription"


----------



## roadrash (15 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> OK moving on, a nice summary over on INRG yesterday. http://inrng.com/2018/03/tue-reform-cortisol-tests/
> 
> Basically wait and see what happens over the coming weeks and months, but the bit that brought water to my eyes was this " in the late 1990s’ one notorious French rider would rub rock salt into his scrotum until it was red and visit a doctor claiming the soreness was down to chafing shorts and asking for some cortisone cream by prescription"


----------



## smutchin (15 Mar 2018)

> One area where things have been tightened up since the Wiggins era is the implementation of a TUE Committee, a panel that oversees granting these. In the past it was often the case that one person alone could approve these and when Chris Froome’s TUE at the Tour de Romandie leaked out WADA ordered the UCI to adhere to its standards which includes having a panel of at least three physicians. The UCI implemented this in the wake of the CIRC Report and now three experts have to unanimously agree. This ought to tighten things up a lot, to have three medics agree that only triamcinolone will do is a _hors catégorie_ hurdle to clear compared to a phone call to the previous UCI doctor Mario Zorzoli.



Lest we forget, Zorzoli and Leinders were close associates back in the day. The CIRC couldn't make any of Rasmussen's mud stick to Zorzoli but he still left his job to spend more time with his family... or whatever it was they gave as the reason.


----------



## Adam4868 (15 Mar 2018)

booze and cake said:


> OK moving on, a nice summary over on INRG yesterday. http://inrng.com/2018/03/tue-reform-cortisol-tests/
> 
> Basically wait and see what happens over the coming weeks and months, but the bit that brought water to my eyes was this " in the late 1990s’ one notorious French rider would rub rock salt into his scrotum until it was red and visit a doctor claiming the soreness was down to chafing shorts and asking for some cortisone cream by prescription"


Deserves a few days in yellow for that !


----------



## Maenchi (16 Mar 2018)

Sir Steve Redgrave ? anyone.............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43362324
and more on this with road.cc......
which I tend to agree with.....


----------



## smutchin (17 Mar 2018)

On the Cycling Podcast the other day, Lionel Birnie made the good point that the UCI probably won't actually investigate the TUEs since it risks showing that they were complicit in the corruption. 

I also wonder if ASO's lapdog really has that much of an appetite for bringing further asterisks to the list of winners of their biggest race...


----------



## Foghat (17 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> On the Cycling Podcast the other day, Lionel Birnie made the good point that the UCI probably won't actually investigate the TUEs since it risks showing that they were complicit in the corruption.
> 
> I also wonder if ASO's lapdog really has that much of an appetite for bringing further asterisks to the list of winners of their biggest race...



I suspect that since the offences were committed two UCI presidents ago, and there are convenient bad guys to blame such as Zorzoli, McQuaid and Verbruggen, then Lappartient won't be too uncomfortable with any findings, unless he himself was also complicit in some way (perhaps he sees the UCI Management Committee he was on was sufficiently far removed from the TUE approvals process).

His willingness to call for CADF to investigate may be down to Prudhomme seeing the writing on the wall for Sky, which means ASO doesn't really need Sky so much any more. With Froome's likely ban meaning he'll probably miss the 2018 Tour, and the seemingly never-ending stream of bad Sky behaviour and PED/malpractice revelations, coupled with Wiggins's/Brailsford's/Sky's own national parliament declaring its belief they were/are operating unethically and mis-using performance-enhancing drugs, there is a fast-reducing imperative on ASO to continue to want or need Sky's/Froome's presence.

Factor in the likelihood of Disney finding the Team Sky brand and personnel too toxic, and the whole procycling sponsorship thing probably not fitting with its general strategy, not to mention how Murdoch seems to regard all publicity as good publicity (witness the Sun's reporting) - milking the situation and procycling for all it's worth regardless of the consequences, I imagine Prudhomme is now just thinking enough's enough with Sky's bull$h1t and ethical vacuum (but still keeping his options open).

Then again, it could be just that as a new president who's stated his aim to crack down on such things, Lappartient couldn't really stay quiet.....


----------



## smutchin (17 Mar 2018)

I remain to be convinced that Lappartient has any more of a backbone than Cookson.


----------



## Foghat (17 Mar 2018)

Indeed - Lappartient's backbone is probably largely determined by:

in relation to Sky's TUEs, the potentially enormous financial exposure associated with the UCI's limited resources taking on the Murdoch machine and its recourse to expensive legal might; and,
more generally, the balance of power within procycling residing with ASO.


----------



## Siclo (21 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Graeme Obree's thoughts
> 
> _He is reasonable and considered on the debate surrounding Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome, British winners of the Tour de France. Wiggins has been assailed by questions over the ethics of his therapeutic use exemptions and Froome has registered an abnormally high reading for salbutamol after using an inhaler to treat asthma._
> 
> ...



He's someone I have huge respect for as an engineer, innovator and athlete but this raises some interesting points.

Court of criminal law - Burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt.

Civil Law - Balance of probabilities

Anti-doping - Who knows? There's no definition. Speculation will always be rife and anti-doping a standing joke until this is addressed. They need to stop making it up as they go to suit a political or corporate agenda

Jury of Peers - Fortunately this will never apply. Can you really see Ulrich, Rasmussen, Zabel et al condemning Lance? Heck, Wiggo was recently posting pictures of himself wearing a Motorola rainbow bands jersey, I'm not sure what that says. Not much different from juries of motorists and dangerous driving.

The system is still broken.


----------



## smutchin (21 Mar 2018)

As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.


----------



## hoopdriver (21 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.


Oh, the King John thing. I get it now. I thought the Magna Carta was one of the spring classics...


----------



## smutchin (21 Mar 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> I thought the Magna Carta was one of the spring classics


----------



## rich p (21 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.


Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?


----------



## Foghat (21 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> As soon as anyone mentions Magna Carta in this kind of context, I can’t take them seriously any more.



Quite.

Assuming what @Dogtrousers posted is the extent of Obree's pronouncements on this, it's preposterous that some people need a court of law to tell them whether or not they're being bull$h1tted.

Is Obree's bull$h1t detector so ineffective that he cannot see: how Wiggins's written and interview statements are completely irreconcilable with a non-fraudulent valid rule-complying basis for his TUE applications; that Wiggins's own pre-prepared best effort at a justification for the applications (_"levelling the playing field"_) doesn't meet either of the two principal mandatory criteria options open to him (emergency or exceptional circumstances); or how his lies about injections have been proven to be lies (pathetic excuses notwithstanding).

Can Obree really not recognise: the endless stream of bull$h1t and insincerity emanating from Brailsford; the enormous catalogue of malpractice revelations and his ridiculous excuses; Brailsford's utter failure to comply with his own lofty claims of propriety and zero tolerance, which were publicly and volubly touted by him to be the cornerstone of Sky's ethos but have been shot down in flames as complete garbage?

Does Obree really not understand what the whistleblower's testimony shows, or that one of the main perpetrators of Sky's scamming, well known for his own misuse of PEDs, admits it was unethical?

What about recognising that Froome has actually been found with double the allowed limit for salbutamol, and that by his own admission he and his doctor decided it was sensible to start dicking around with extra doses to protect his lead rather than opting not to run the risk of elevated dosing causing an adverse result and an associated ban in line with others who overdosed on it, not to mention being disqualified from the race result?

And is that the best he can do on the key lessons to be learned from Armstrong? How about recognising that Armstrong wilfully misled and exploited millions of cancer sufferers, and sued, threatened, bullied, intimidated and deliberately ruined the careers and business interests of innocent people. Rather than opting to concentrate on his concern for Armstrong, how about telling us what the important lessons to be learned from that outrageous repertoire of bad behaviour are......and it's not that _"there is never enough"_, that's for sure.

Spectacularly missing the point, much like Redgrave did. Very poor show from Obree.....hopefully he's said something more sensible on the subject somewhere, but I can't say I'm inclined to try to find it.


----------



## Bollo (22 Mar 2018)

The article doesn’t quite deliver on the headline, but ASO may be getting the hump with Froome. Is this largely symbolic though given Froome’s Giro focus this year?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> The article doesn’t quite deliver on the headline, but ASO may be getting the hump with Froome. Is this largely symbolic though given Froome’s Giro focus this year?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/21/chris-froome-tour-de-france-race-oragnisers-aso


I don't think so. I'm sure Froome wants five wins and the clock's ticking... but ASO got away with a similar stunt in 2006. I think Sky has more money than the teams affected back then, but would they have enough time to take it through the courts and make it stick? In 2006, I think the ASO bans were only a day or two before the race.


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

Blimey, 2006, that was a year... Are there any stages to Morzine this year where Froome can stick it to ASO?


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."


----------



## Crackle (22 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."


That's put a rocket up his jacksie.................

........yeh I know; I got nothing else.....


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

I find the Froome salbutamol case puzzling. To get caught with that much salbutamol in his system is a real schoolboy error - from that velonews piece, it seems it can only possibly be explained by Froome having taken a single massive dose of salbutamol, probably as a pill rather than from a puffer. But why on earth would he do that? I can't help feeling there's more to the story than has yet been revealed.

The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.


----------



## Crackle (22 Mar 2018)

Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.


I wonder if they might be planning to do the defence lab test after the Giro, or possibly even during it if Froome's out of contention. Much has been written about the difficulty of replicating Grand Tour conditions... so they could use an actual Grand Tour.


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> I wonder if they might be planning to do the defence lab test after the Giro, or possibly even during it if Froome's out of contention. Much has been written about the difficulty of replicating Grand Tour conditions... so they could use an actual Grand Tour.



Maybe, but Dr Bill suggests they would probably be better off avoiding a pharmokinetic study since it's extremely unlikely to give them the result they want, even if they can recreate the conditions accurately.

As @Crackle says, it looks like he's stuffed. All the team are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.


The main omission I see in the article is whether Froome's couple of years with bilharzia might have messed up his kidneys, which was mentioned earlier on some site called cyclechat.



Dogtrousers said:


> To keep pushing against what seems to be the inevitable would seem to be completely stupid - unless they have something up their sleeves.


Their arms. Sorry. IGMC.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Interesting article. I liked the _'hors categorie'_ jibe at the end.

The UCI's lawyers must be fairly confident on this case, given the groundwork already done on previous Salbutamol cases. And ASO's position and pronouncements will be a reasonably accurate barometer of both that and its own lawyers' confidence......the latest from ASO confirms my earlier deduction that Prudhomme now firmly sees Froome's Tour participation as a liability rather than an asset.....and sufficiently so to be able to take on the waning Sky/Murdoch procycling power in the legal arena.


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

Foghat said:


> The UCI's lawyers must be fairly confident on this case, given the groundwork already done on previous Salbutamol cases.



What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.



mjr said:


> The main omission I see in the article is whether Froome's couple of years with bilharzia might have messed up his kidneys, which was mentioned earlier on some site called cyclechat.



Well, that sounds like just the kind of bullshit excuse Sky might try on, but if that's the explanation, why is this the one and only occasion that he's been caught out by it? If he was only sightly over the limit, it might sound plausible, but it's double the limit.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and *the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.*



Good. Hopefully there'll be additional punishment for Sky for blemishing the image, reputation and interests of cycling and UCI through wilful delaying and obfuscation tactics, on top of the sanction for recklessly administering extra Salbutamol for the purpose of preserving a race lead.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.


Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?



smutchin said:


> Well, that sounds like just the kind of bullshit excuse Sky might try on, but if that's the explanation, why is this the one and only occasion that he's been caught out by it? If he was only sightly over the limit, it might sound plausible, but it's double the limit.


One problem if they did set limits from lab testing, even with an allowance, is it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier. I think it's improbable and attempting this defence would be high risk, but it's possible and I wouldn't rule it out. That's part of why the current salbutamol test sucks almost as much as the old hematocrit one - is the rule for athletes to limit their salbutamol intake methods and amount, or is the rule really not to pee too much of it? And if it's intake, why aren't they also using inhalers that record dispensing? But then they could be using non-recording inhalers to take extra... what a mess!


----------



## Bollo (22 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> As @Crackle says, it looks like he's stuffed. All the team are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable.



And that’s what I just don’t get. It’s almost becoming an act of self harm in order to protect reputations that have long since disappeared down the shitter. I wonder if any of the people involved will ever come out and say “yeah, we should have just sucked up a 9 month ban, given the Vuelta back and returned without all the cleaner-than-thou PR bollocks”.


----------



## Bollo (22 Mar 2018)

Crackle said:


> That's put a rocket up his jacksie.................
> 
> ........yeh I know; I got nothing else.....


Pity Like.


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?



OK, if the limit predates the test, maybe I've got that the wrong way round. But if what Dr Bill says is correct, the tests do seem to support the 1,000mg limit, and demonstrate that it can only be exceeded in extreme circumstances, and even then not by a huge amount (certainly not double) - and he suggests that it's extremely unlikely that anyone could exceed the limit by using an inhaler alone, you'd have to take a single massive dose, probably in pill form.



mjr said:


> it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier



If that's Sky's defence, the onus should be on them to prove it.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> And that’s what I just don’t get. It’s almost becoming an act of self harm in order to protect reputations that have long since disappeared down the shitter. I wonder if any of the people involved will ever come out and say “yeah, we should have just sucked up a 9 month ban, given the Vuelta back and returned without all the cleaner-than-thou PR bollocks”.



Sky is likely not much longer for the world of procycling. They've proven to be far more concerned with exposure than reputation, in line with the unprincipled Murdoch ethos, which people should be in no doubt is providing top-down direction to Team Sky. Unfortunately this means Sky/Murdoch will continue to ream what it can out of the sport, regardless of the consequences for cycling, while it still can and until Disney pulls the plug.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

smutchin said:


> OK, if the limit predates the test, maybe I've got that the wrong way round. But if what Dr Bill says is correct, the tests do seem to support the 1,000mg limit, and demonstrate that it can only be exceeded in extreme circumstances, and even then not by a huge amount (certainly not double) - and he suggests that it's extremely unlikely that anyone could exceed the limit by using an inhaler alone, you'd have to take a single massive dose, probably in pill form.


The study abstract says they tested thirteen healthy males inhaling... males is OK in this case, but both thirteen and healthy raise doubts for me about whether Froome might actually exceed the limit. Healthy test subjects would have had no asthma, presumably no history of bilharzia and they still managed to manufacture a couple of AAFs in such a small sample. It would also be interesting to know if these were endurance athletes and if they'd been exercising regularly in the weeks before the test.



> If that's Sky's defence, the onus should be on them to prove it.


Oh, I agree. I just won't be as surprised as some of you if they do, at least on a balance of probabilities.


----------



## Bollo (22 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?
> 
> 
> One problem if they did set limits from lab testing, even with an allowance, is it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier. I think it's improbable and attempting this defence would be high risk, but it's possible and I wouldn't rule it out. That's part of why the current salbutamol test sucks almost as much as the old hematocrit one - is the rule for athletes to limit their salbutamol intake methods and amount, or is the rule really not to pee too much of it? And if it's intake, why aren't they also using inhalers that record dispensing? But then they could be using non-recording inhalers to take extra... what a mess!


I’ve wondered that about the limits as well. Unless I’m not understanding, the _dose_ limit is defined in terms of a physiological measurement that’s extrapolated to a dose. Why not just cut out at least some of the uncertainty and define the pass/fail limit in terms of that measurement directly? It’s then the teams’ responsibility to ensure that the physiological measurement stays below the limit using whatever doses work for each rider.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are we certain that the delay can necessarily all be laid at Sky's door?



No, but whose claim to want a quick resolution is more believable? Punish for wilful obfuscation then, if UCI has unreasonably contributed to any delay.




Dogtrousers said:


> Genuine question. In other words. Why is it taking so fecking long?



Because Sky knows its only hope is a long, complex drawn-out process that UCI cannot afford and runs out of money to prosecute (legal support/representation being extremely costly) or throws up a technicality Sky hasn't found yet that it hopes will get the case dismissed, as you've alluded to. 

​


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Bollo said:


> I’ve wondered that about the limits as well. Unless I’m not understanding, the _dose_ limit is defined in terms of a physiological measurement that’s extrapolated to a dose. Why not just cut out at least some of the uncertainty and define the pass/fail limit in terms of that measurement directly? It’s then the teams’ responsibility to ensure that the physiological measurement stays below the limit using whatever doses work for each rider.



Indeed - the dosing guidelines are merely general guidelines, not instructions, whereas the test limit is an absolute that Dr Apollo 11 has shown to be a reasonable one and which professional athletes/teams should be duty-bound to ensure they keep the right side of.....and if that means not dicking around with extra Salbutamol to preserve race leads, so be it.


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

mjr said:


> they still managed to manufacture a couple of AAFs in such a small sample



...by administering a huge single dose.

OK, I take your point about the possibility of outliers, but I remain skeptical that this is the explanation in this case. And like @Dogtrousers I'm getting impatient - although I'm mindful of the fact that Ulissi's case took nine months to resolve.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> What I don't know is who is delaying the process and how. LADS? UCI? Sky?


I suspect it's Sky. I suspect they tried to replicate conditions and reproduce the results during training and failed, so will now try to use the Giro to do it. If he's not anywhere near leading, expect Froome to go missing on the second rest day while he goes to a lab somewhere.

If UCI is delaying it, then some of Lapdog's statements are pretty devious.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I know what Sky's motivation is, or might be.
> 
> What I don't know is who is delaying the process and how. LADS? UCI? Sky?
> 
> Or maybe I'm just being impatient.



I doubt very much UCI/LADS are delaying the process - it's in their interests for a quick resolution, and they must have good groundwork from earlier cases to use. Given Sky's decision not to take advantage of the off-season as part of a quick ban, the tactic that gives Sky the most exposure and only chance of success is one that prevaricates and delays such that participation at the Giro and Tour are still feasible.

Following due process with limited resources doesn't count as delaying. Taking forever to submit a case does. Do we know if Sky has actually submitted a case yet?


----------



## smutchin (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> For all we know it may be on hold pending the next scheduled LADS night out.



#classicbantz


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> For all we know it may be on hold pending the next scheduled LADS night out.



Sure - they could be painting cows' tits red too, but why.....?

Just follow the money.


----------



## mjr (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I've had a quick search around. Looks like there is some exceeding slow grinding going on.
> 
> This is from yesterday.
> 
> ...


Not authorised to say that much, yet said that much and more?


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I admire your trust in the speedy and seamless working of the disciplinary procedures.



Don't be absurd. I've merely pointed out how unlikely it is UCI/LADS will be deliberately delaying the due process.......there's no incentive for them to do so, indeed the contrary applies. Moreover, Sky has every incentive to delay. I haven't commented on the effectiveness of the due process or how expeditious it is. Maybe UCI/LADS need longer to study and respond to what's submitted by Sky, but that's just part of the due process, not 'delaying'.


----------



## Foghat (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> We have no knowledge that anyone is delaying the process (if you accept the delays of due process). We suspect Sky might have a motive to. That's all.



Quite - but you said you didn't know who is delaying the process and how, and went on to speculate that it could be UCI/LADS or Sky that were delaying the process. The discussion on motives and clarification of what constitutes delay versus due process, which are critical to understanding what's going on and the battle being played out, should assist in that perfectly reasonable speculation.


----------



## Siclo (22 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> "Before passing to the next phase, we've got to be sure to have responded to every question. Nobody wants to risk going forward without having closed every detail. For that reason, LADS has asked some questions to the Anti-Doping Tribunal, to be sure to have followed the correct procedure," Lappartient said.



That's an interesting statement, it implies there might be procedural irregularities, that's Froome's lawyer's speciality.

UCI covering bases or responding to a defence?

I get the feeling he'll walk on a technicality. I'm not sure it matters from a credibility perspective. I can't wait for the line 'I've never tested true positive'


----------



## al-fresco (26 Mar 2018)

That's Chris Froome's new nickname sorted...


----------



## mjr (28 Mar 2018)

Integrity and compliance: the new strong and stable? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...appoint-integrity-officer-jiffy-bag-aftermath


----------



## booze and cake (28 Mar 2018)

Ooof it does'nt look good if a company needs to employ an integrity officer. Integrity, something we've been missing since we started.

There were calls for Sky to employ a morality officer, until everyone realised Sky have no morals to officiate. The Disney takeover is being hurried through so we can all return to the land of make believe.

I bet Deliveroo are keen to get involved, imagine if all their riders were on Sky's super inhalers, a massive increase in productivity for the company, and everyone gets their takeaways sooner, while they're hotter, total win. Maybe if they had been involved from the start the questioning would have been a lot simpler:
Q- what's in the jiffy bag?
A- Tandoori chicken masala.

OK, as you were.


----------



## Adam4868 (30 Mar 2018)

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/new...uments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685


----------



## Viking (30 Mar 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/new...uments-sends-case-to-anti-doping-court_461685



This is lifted from Bikeradar



> They haven't found him guilty. They've just referred it to a full tribunal, which was always going to happen. The LeMonde journalist on twitter says it has gone to the UCI independent tribunal, not CAS. Velonews seem to have made that bit up.


----------



## PpPete (31 Mar 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Guardian are saying it could run beyond the TdF and are speculating about what his defence might be.
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/30/chris-froome-doping-investigation-tour-de-france
> Nothing amazingly new or interesting.


Very true - To get it thrown out by LADS it seems he would have had to have proved a negative.


----------



## Bollo (23 Apr 2018)

Not the story the headline advertised, but I read this as Prudhomme putting the squeeze on the UCI.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/22/chris-fromme-salbutamol-case-tour-de-france


----------



## Slick (23 Apr 2018)

Bollo said:


> Not the story the headline advertised, but I read this as Prudhomme putting the squeeze on the UCI.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/22/chris-fromme-salbutamol-case-tour-de-france


Seems a fair assessment but also a fair enough request. Just a shame that they can't do it before the Giro.


----------



## Bollo (3 May 2018)

Now the Giro organisers thinks Brailsford sold them a lemon.... 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-froome-giro-d-italia-accused-14m-mauro-vegni


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

Bollo said:


> Now the Giro organisers thinks Brailsford sold them a lemon....
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-froome-giro-d-italia-accused-14m-mauro-vegni


I still can't understand the whole "appearance fee" thing; World Tour teams have to ride WT events, so I would have thought the organisers would say "send who you farking want, makes no difference to us if you send a 2nd or 3rd rate team as there are plenty others willing to fight for the victory..."


----------



## hoopdriver (4 May 2018)

That’s true, but Froome for example is a very, very high profile rider. His presence on the Giro would generate a great deal more coverage for the event. He could have just saved himself for The Tour. Instead he’s doing the Giro and trying to join the legends by holding all three tour titles at once - quite a compelling narrative and valuable for the organisers. The mess with the adverse drug finding has screwed everybody.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

hoopdriver said:


> That’s true, but Froome for example is a very, very high profile rider. His presence on the Giro would generate a great deal more coverage for the event. He could have just saved himself for The Tour. Instead he’s doing the Giro and trying to join the legends by holding all three tour titles at once - quite a compelling narrative and valuable for the organisers. The mess with the adverse drug finding has screwed everybody.


I'm not sure about that, other than in the UK media; which is still a minor player in terms of cycling. 

I don't think he'll ever get "legend" status irrespective of what he does, other than with Sky fanboys/converts from golf.


----------



## mjr (4 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5234039, member: 43827"]As opposed to serious, committed cyclists I presume. Do you know any.[/QUOTE]
I can think of some who should be committed. Seriously.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

[QUOTE 5234039, member: 43827"]As opposed to serious, committed cyclists I presume. Do you know any.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you are on about; there's no need to be a cyclist to have an awareness of why Froome is unlikely to ever achieve "legend" status; fanboys/converts from golf <other convert sports are available> don't seem to get this.


----------



## FishFright (4 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> I'm not sure about that, other than in the UK media; which is still a minor player in terms of cycling.
> 
> I don't think he'll ever get "legend" status irrespective of what he does, other than with Sky fanboys/converts from golf.



British multiple grand tour winners are ten a penny so I see why you'd think that ....


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

FishFright said:


> British multiple grand tour winners are ten a penny so I see why you'd think that ....


As I said, I don't think it matters other than him being British and people thinking that Grand Tours are the most important thing in cycling.


----------



## FishFright (4 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> As I said, I don't think it matters other than him being British and people thinking that Grand Tours are the most important thing in cycling.



Chuckle


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

FishFright said:


> Chuckle


Feel free to disagree, and enjoy your 18 holes in the morning


----------



## Slick (4 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Feel free to disagree, and enjoy your 18 holes in the morning


 Very good.


----------



## rich p (4 May 2018)

He's British???????


----------



## rich p (4 May 2018)

FishFright said:


> Chuckle


Whay are you chuckling?
Other than you and Lance Armstrong and the great unwashed, lots of people prefer the Classics to GTs


----------



## Maenchi (4 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> I'm not sure about that, other than in the UK media; which is still a minor player in terms of cycling.
> 
> I don't think he'll ever get "legend" status irrespective of what he does, other than with Sky fanboys/converts from golf.


 why 'converts from golf' ?................


----------



## Slick (4 May 2018)

Maenchi said:


> why 'converts from golf' ?................


Seems a common enough theory on here that needs to have any basis in truth.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 May 2018)

Maenchi said:


> why 'converts from golf' ?................


Cycling is the new golf according to me


----------



## Foghat (5 May 2018)

Bollo said:


> Now the Giro organisers thinks Brailsford sold them a lemon....



Difficult to summon much sympathy for Vegni, given this demonstrates what a bull$h1tter he must be, based on his previous flat denials of start fees or any 'relationship based on economics' with Sky around Froome entering the Giro......... maybe he's been infected by the Sky bull$h1tting machine.

Stop bull$h1tting, you morons!


----------



## roadrash (5 May 2018)

As @rich p said above, both have a legitimate place in cycling but a hell of a lot of die hard cycling fans put more emphasis on the classics than grand tours .


----------



## FishFright (5 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Feel free to disagree, and enjoy your 18 holes in the morning



I was under the influence and failed to write the joke and only wrote the chuckle.


----------



## Maenchi (5 May 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Cycling is the new golf according to me





Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Cycling is the new golf according to me


Sacrilege !!


----------



## User169 (7 May 2018)

Well I never!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-froomes-salbutamol-defence-boosted-by-scientific-study/


----------



## roadrash (7 May 2018)

well isn't that jolly good timing


----------



## smutchin (7 May 2018)

I can’t see how this will really help Froome. Even revising his sample down to 1,429ng/ml, that’s still _considerably_ in excess of the 1,000ng/ml limit. It doesn’t state in the report exactly by how much they exceeded 1,000ng/ml in the simulation but that only leads me to suppose it’s not by _that_ much.


----------



## roadrash (7 May 2018)

so where has this magical figure of 1,429ng/ml come from , if that's the figure then why not say that from the start , if it isn't the figure then stick with the original , I don't understand how someone came up with a "revised "figure


----------



## Bollo (7 May 2018)

smutchin said:


> I can’t see how this will really help Froome. Even revising his sample down to 1,429ng/ml, that’s still _considerably_ in excess of the 1,000ng/ml limit. It doesn’t state in the report exactly by how much they exceeded 1,000ng/ml in the simulation but that only leads me to suppose it’s not by _that_ much.


It means he’s only 42.9% as guilty as f***.


----------



## rich p (7 May 2018)

Does anyone know if @Adam4868 works in a lab in Leiden?


----------



## Adam4868 (7 May 2018)

rich p said:


> Does anyone know if @Adam4868 works in a lab in Leiden?


Nah......

View: https://youtu.be/OO9AhsGaV58


----------



## smutchin (7 May 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I know he's not all that popular with some here but here's Ross Tucker's take on this. I found it interesting.



His biggest crime is presenting this stuff as a series of tweets rather than in more digestible blog format. Very irritating.

That aside, he does make some good points - "First, if 15.4% of people can fail a test, then where are all history's failures? Second, Froome didn’t just fail it - he blew the ceiling off WADA’s upper limit" (TMN to me) and on top of that, the simulation is based on someone taking the maximum 800mcg dose all in one go, which is not at all the same as having a few puffs over the course of a few hours of riding.


----------



## Siclo (8 May 2018)

roadrash said:


> so where has this magical figure of 1,429ng/ml come from , if that's the figure then why not say that from the start , if it isn't the figure then stick with the original , I don't understand how someone came up with a "revised "figure



AIUI the rules are about to change take into account the specific gravity of the urine in the sample, in order to allow for dehydration effects on the concentration of the salbutamol in the sample. If you correct Froome's 2000 odd number to allow for the SG of his urine it comes out at 1429, still over 40% over the limit but a damn sight closer to the UCI decision threshold of 1200 (I think, although it might be 1250)


----------



## Adam4868 (8 May 2018)

I hope it's sorted before,but as far as I can see is there any time limit ? What's to stop this dragging on past the Tour.


----------



## mjr (15 May 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> What the clip didn't show was Brailsford jumping out of the shadows afterwards and saying to the interviewer "Your name will also go on the list! What is it?"


Don't tell him - bike!


----------



## lazybloke (5 Jun 2018)

My news feed says Froome has submitted 1500 pages of evidence for consideration. No link for some reason, not yet anyway.


----------



## lazybloke (5 Jun 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Linky with a bit of discussion here: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/kwi...-froomes-1500-page-defence-daily-news-digest/


Was just about to post the same link. I hadn't previously heard of '1500 pages', but there doesn't seem to be anything new otherwise. The comments are predictable.



Elsewhere, the provisional team & rider listings for the Tour de France have been announced, including Froome of course. I wonder what discussions are going on behind closed doors at the ASO.


----------



## Bollo (5 Jun 2018)

On a more practical note and guilty or not, how are they going to ensure Froome's safety? Even with the more 'pragmatic' Giro crowds, there was the giant inhaler and the spitting incident. I'd put the chances of there being a proper nutter at the tour who fancies making the news as quite high. I wonder if the CRS have watched the videos of last year's Vuelta and contacting their cousins in the Guardia Civil for tips?


----------



## smutchin (5 Jun 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> We'll have to wait and see, but I wonder if the 1500 pages include proof _"... through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose ..." _as required by WADA.
> 
> Or will it be "we haven't done the PK study that WADA requires, but here's 1500 pages of other stuff".



Last I heard, the route they were going to take was to challenge the credibility of the limit by showing that it was possible to exceed it by taking a legal dose.

I think they quickly realised that the pharmokinetic study route wasn't going to get them anywhere.

Burying the case in paperwork seems like a good wheeze. I suspect Dave Brailsford has been reading Bleak House. Eventually, 50 years from now, Froome's grandchildren will find themselves getting a ban on his behalf when the case is finally resolved.


----------



## lazybloke (5 Jun 2018)

smutchin said:


> Last I heard, the route they were going to take was to challenge the credibility of the limit by showing that it was possible to exceed it by taking a legal dose.
> 
> I think they quickly realised that the pharmokinetic study route wasn't going to get them anywhere.


Eh, how do you challenge the credibility without doing a pharmocokinetic study? Rely on previous studies I suppose? I've just found one that studied horses!

Am very keen to see if Sky/Froome have an ace up their sleeve, rather than trying to relying on something akin to 'reasonable doubt'.


Meanwhile, are Froome's team still being denied access to his other samples? Surely that's denying Froome access to evidence?


----------



## smutchin (5 Jun 2018)

lazybloke said:


> Eh, how do you challenge the credibility without doing a pharmocokinetic study?



Sorry, not being clear...

Originally, the talk was of doing the study on Froome himself, showing that his abnormal physiology and/or dodgy liver, combined with extreme dehydration, was the cause of the excess salbutamol reading.

Now I think they've changed their approach to using existing studies, which use modelling to show that it is possible in _hypothetical_ circumstances to exceed the limit, thereby showing the limit is scientifically unsound.

The difference is that they're using legal chicanery to undermine the testing procedure, rather than using science to prove that Froome is a freak.


----------



## smutchin (5 Jun 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> So instead of saying "hey, ref, no way was he offside!" they are submitting a tome questioning the validity of the offside law.



Or: "It's impossible to trust the referee's decision on whether or not it was offside, therefore the offside rule should be scrapped."


----------



## Crackle (11 Jun 2018)

Dr Freedman speaks, well writes, thankfully no one stole the laptop he wrote it on

http://road.cc/content/news/243385-team-sky-jiffy-bag-doctor-break-silence-extraordinary-new-book

_*Former Team Sky and British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman is to break his silence in what its publishers call “an extraordinary new book” on the ‘Jiffy Bag’ affair that led to both being investigated by UK Anti-doping over allegations of wrongdoing.
*_
A week before the Tour starts it comes out. Ethically cynical timing.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jun 2018)

Up there with Wiggins "having his say" as something to look forward to.


----------



## hoopdriver (11 Jun 2018)

Crackle said:


> Dr Freedman speaks, well writes, thankfully no one stole the laptop he wrote it on
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/243385-team-sky-jiffy-bag-doctor-break-silence-extraordinary-new-book
> 
> ...


As you say, just before the Tour. Seeking more of those marginal gains.
Nice that he is healthy now - as I recall he was to Ill to testify


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (11 Jun 2018)

Sacrificed by SKY and now vilified by the fans who support SKY. Job done by SirDave.


----------



## Adam4868 (11 Jun 2018)

What's the betting there's nowt new in it and he feels hard done by,not forgetting a bit of money would be nice....Be careful what you say doc they have lawyers !


----------



## Crackle (11 Jun 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I bet it'll be bland as hell and rubbish.
> 
> Only suckers will buy it.
> 
> I probably will


We look forward to your treatise on it and photocopy by pm please


----------



## smutchin (11 Jun 2018)

I note that the book has a foreword by Sam Allardyce, that notable bastion of sporting ethics with a whiter than white reputation.


----------



## mjr (11 Jun 2018)

smutchin said:


> I note that the book has a foreword by Sam Allardyce, that notable bastion of sporting ethics with a whiter than white reputation.


Can someone fetch a mop, please? I think this sarcasm is dripping over everything. We need a clean-up crew. Bring whitewash.


----------



## Bollo (11 Jun 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/11/chris-froome-lizzie-deignan-doping-cases-reputations


----------



## hoopdriver (12 Jun 2018)

I shouldn't think story, albeit about a tennis player, would bode well for Chris Froome’s hopes for leniency. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/tennis/sara-errani-tennis-ban-letrozole/index.html


----------



## Bollo (20 Jun 2018)

Le Blaireau suggests a very French solution.....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/20/bernard-hinault-tour-de-france-strike-chris-froome


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 Jun 2018)

Bollo said:


> Le Blaireau suggests a very French solution.....
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/20/bernard-hinault-tour-de-france-strike-chris-froome


Another bitter average former rider. Wait, have I used that one already?


----------



## Bollo (20 Jun 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Wait, have I used that one already?


Maybe that’s what Froomedog should have said when they passed him that inhaler.


----------



## Adam4868 (20 Jun 2018)

Pah ! French.....any excuse for a strike !


----------



## Adam4868 (1 Jul 2018)

http://road.cc/content/news/244402-...e-chris-froome-tour-de-france-team-sky-appeal
Froome out of tour ?
Bit more from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/chris-froome-blocked-signing-in-tour-de-france


----------



## Bollo (1 Jul 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/244402-...e-chris-froome-tour-de-france-team-sky-appeal
> Froome out of tour ?
> Bit more from the Guardian
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/chris-froome-blocked-signing-in-tour-de-france


You beat me by nine minutes!

That is f****** nuclear! If I were a lawyer working for Sky I’d be checking out the Ferrari website, because there’s no way they’ll take that. My sympathies are not with Froome, but if ASO wanted to block a rider they should have done it much earlier. There’s nothing new come up that would have changed the situation.


----------



## Biff600 (1 Jul 2018)

And in the Independant........

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530441162


----------



## uncle_adolph (1 Jul 2018)

What a coincidence it comes a few days after Hinault sticks his Gallic nose in. Anything to get a home winner, eh?


----------



## Adam4868 (1 Jul 2018)

I did hear hear Lionel Birnie recently on a podcast saying he thought there would be something before the start of the Tour.My only fear is that ride it ot not idls for Froomes safety ect.
For a sidenote im staying with hes not guilty !


----------



## Bollo (1 Jul 2018)

uncle_adolph said:


> What a coincidence it comes a few days after Hinault sticks his Gallic nose in. Anything to get a home winner, eh?


Its a nice thought, but Prudhomme is much too canny a businessman to get caught up in Hinault’s testosterone cloud. My theory based on absolutely bugger all is that they’re getting really twitchy about the security of the race and Cinq Zéro have said they can’t guarantee rider safety.


----------



## neilb1906 (1 Jul 2018)

Mmm, I dont recall the organisers of the Tdf in the nineties getting so precious about reputation of the event when they let Virenque back in after the Festina affair to ride for Polti!


----------



## Crankarm (1 Jul 2018)

Well if he doesn't ride then Froome will be referred to as the Kenyan cyclist.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (1 Jul 2018)

neilb1906 said:


> Mmm, I dont recall the organisers of the Tdf in the nineties getting so precious about reputation of the event when they let Virenque back in after the Festina affair to ride for Polti!


Your memory isn't that good, as they (ASO) did try to stop Virenque from racing, but the UCI (protectors of the dopers) told them they were too late in issuing the ban


----------



## Adam4868 (1 Jul 2018)

In other breaking news on Froomey...
https://news.sky.com/story/michelle-froome-chris-will-ride-in-tour-de-france-11422843
Michelle says he's riding so I'm happy !


----------



## Bollo (1 Jul 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> In other breaking news on Froomey...
> https://news.sky.com/story/michelle-froome-chris-will-ride-in-tour-de-france-11422843
> Michelle says he's riding so I'm happy !


I’m just waiting for a statement from Cath Wiggins supporting ASO’s decision.


----------



## Kernow_T (1 Jul 2018)

Apparently although there is indeed a prerogative whereby ASO can 'ban' a rider taking part if it damaged the reputation etc of the race, actually, in reality, it's pretty much impossible to enforce without them getting a hiding, especially in this circumstance - ASO shouldn't know about this anyway, and proven repeating drugs cheats have ridden in the TdF post multiple bans.


----------



## grellboy (1 Jul 2018)

Richard Freeman: Bradley Wiggins doctor had 'suicidal thoughts' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44654688
Just posted on BBC. Interesting. Documentary support (of sorts!) too.


----------



## Milkfloat (1 Jul 2018)

In my opinion the ASO are just playing up to public opinion. They know they will lose but they get some publicity, show the French public that they are trying to do something, but ultimately he gets to race and they can wring their hands.


----------



## FishFright (1 Jul 2018)

Brexit innit lol

One way or the other this should have been sorted out before the Giro. To the casual follower it looks terrible


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Jul 2018)

View: https://twitter.com/ukcyclingexpert/status/1013373430308229122?s=19


----------



## neilb1906 (2 Jul 2018)

Mr Pro tour Punditry

I obviously bow to your better memory, however, the fact remains that the TdF organisers, for decades, did very little to address the drugs cheats in the nineties , in my opinion. The loss to revenue by excluding the star racers of the day, mostly drug fuelled, was too much to risk.


----------



## Bollo (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It would appear that the UCI regulation stating _"The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event."_ is something of a paper tiger.


Genuine question, is that a UCI regulation or an ASO contract clause? Either way, it's wide enough for the lawyers to drive the Sky death star through.


Dogtrousers said:


> Marc Madiot, FDJ boss quoted here
> _"It's political, courageous and logical, (But) it does not necessarily mean Froome will not be on the starting line-up. There is a judicial hearing and I trust my Anglo-Saxon friends will organise a strong defence," _


Love it!


----------



## brommers (2 Jul 2018)

Breaking News - UCI have cleared Chris Froome


----------



## Bollo (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> That's a UCI regulation. 2.2.010 Exclusion from Races
> 
> Although there are probably very similar clauses in ASO contracts.


Thanks 'trousers.


----------



## Bollo (2 Jul 2018)

brommers said:


> Breaking News - UCI have cleared Chris Froome


 That kinda whiffs.


Dogtrousers said:


> I thought it would be CAS, not the UCI who would need to do that?
> 
> Either way, not unexpected.


I guess that it would only go to CAS if there was still a dispute between Sky and the UCI.


----------



## Phaeton (2 Jul 2018)

brommers said:


> Breaking News - UCI have cleared Chris Froome


http://www.skysports.com/cycling/ne...by-uci-and-wada-over-salbutamol-test-findings


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

http://road.cc/content/news/244420-...y-jiffy-bag-doc-breaks-silence-and-reveals-he

UCI statement - Well.........pressure was on to get this sorted before the start of the Tour


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Jul 2018)

Understated Cycling Irony: _The UCI understands that there will be significant discussion of this decision...._


----------



## Bollo (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> No I got my wires crossed. I thought Brommers was referring to the ASO exclusion (which would be CAS) not the whole AAF thing (which is indeed UCI).
> 
> So it's all over? Just like that? Phooey. Just when it was getting interesting.


The court of French public opinion may not have closed the case.


----------



## si_c (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> No I got my wires crossed. I thought Brommers was referring to the ASO exclusion (which would be CAS) not the whole AAF thing (which is indeed UCI).
> 
> So it's all over? Just like that? Phooey. Just when it was getting interesting.



Whilst I'm happy it has been resolved, it would be good for transparency sake if they released the expert reasoning and evidence base behind this. Otherwise people will (quite rightly) still have doubts.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Jul 2018)

Never any doubt....let the race begin !


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

Hinault will be spitting teeth out. Let's hope they're his own.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Jul 2018)

The public need more details, I wonder if they will be forthcoming.


----------



## Beebo (2 Jul 2018)

This means that the Giro and Veulta results are ratified and Froome holds all three titles


----------



## Twizit (2 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> The court of French public opinion may not have closed the case.



I'm putting bets on some "incident" involving the public and their opinion having a material impact on the race outcome. Absolute shame if this does happen, but given the vitriol we've seen in the past I can only see it escalating from here - especially given the lack of any detail and what appears to be "we've cleared him.... and lots of experts were involved.... but we're not going to tell you any more than that"


----------



## User269 (2 Jul 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> The public need more details, I wonder if they will be forthcoming.



Various sources of details, including this.


----------



## Joffey (2 Jul 2018)

Kudos to the leaker of the AAF, they have managed to further ruin cycling reputation when no actual offence had been committed. What a tool.

Sky saying 19% over after adjustment for dehydration - hardly double. The media have got their clicks & sales though so no harm done eh?


----------



## Phaeton (2 Jul 2018)

Some people irrationally don't like other people & will do all they can to hurt them, especially if they are better than their guy/girl


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2018)

> WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF



This is the really interesting part of the statement. They're going to have to take salbutamol (and probably other asthma treatments) off the list now because this renders the limit effectively unenforceable.

Never mind Hinault, Ulissi must be absolutely fuming.


----------



## FishFright (2 Jul 2018)

Joffey said:


> Kudos to the leaker of the AAF, they have managed to further ruin cycling reputation when no actual offence had been committed. What a tool.
> 
> Sky saying 19% over after adjustment for dehydration - hardly double. The media have got their clicks & sales though so no harm done eh?



TBH I would have preferred that it was never a 'secret' and the whole process was dealt with openly and quickly just after the Vuelta. My faith in the UCI has not grown at all

19% over is hardly under too

At least it's cleared up in time for the Tour I suppose and I can adopt my Scottishesque any one but Sky approach =D

Here's to a great Tour!


----------



## lane (2 Jul 2018)

brommers said:


> Breaking News - UCI have cleared Chris Froome



Excellent!


----------



## uncle_adolph (2 Jul 2018)

I'm looking forward to hearing Richard Virenque's expert analysis of this in the French media.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Jul 2018)

We can all now breath a sigh of relief, with the help of an inhaler.


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/ [...] The UCI hopes that the cycling world can now turn its focus to, and enjoy, the upcoming races on the cycling calendar.[/I]


How can anyone be that drunk on a Monday morning?


----------



## rich p (2 Jul 2018)

smutchin said:


> This is the really interesting part of the statement. They're going to have to take salbutamol (and probably other asthma treatments) off the list now because this renders the limit effectively unenforceable.
> 
> Never mind Hinault, Ulissi must be absolutely fuming.


My first thought was to wonder if Ulissi would have been cleared if he'd had the money, clout and resources of Froome and Sly.


----------



## Beebo (2 Jul 2018)

rich p said:


> Froome and Sly.


is that a deliberate typo?
Team Sly sounds about right.


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Thinking about it, and this just idle speculation, I wonder if ASO,_ knew _ what was coming when they opened the (doomed in any case) "prejudicial to the image or reputation" bid.
> 
> I don't know know why they would do that. But the thought crossed my mind.


So ASO could take the moral high ground and whine to the French about how they would love to have loved to stop those dodgy British riders from winning yet another Tour?


----------



## lazybloke (2 Jul 2018)

I only watch the Tour for the scenery anyway


----------



## roadrash (2 Jul 2018)

I will be watching the tour to keep an eye out for hinault in disguise trying to shove froome of a mountain


----------



## Beebo (2 Jul 2018)

lazybloke said:


> I only watch the Tour for the scenery anyway


Is that like only buying playboy for the articles?


----------



## Tin Pot (2 Jul 2018)

So when is the tour starting, when do I need to get my shoot together?



Beebo said:


> Is that like only buying playboy for the articles?


Or maybe the opposite.


----------



## roadrash (2 Jul 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> So when is the tour starting, when do I need to get my shoot together



Saturday 7th july


----------



## rich p (2 Jul 2018)

Beebo said:


> is that a deliberate typo?
> Team Sly sounds about right.


It was fatfinger but I liked the irony so left it in!


----------



## rich p (2 Jul 2018)

To be honest, the French roadside fans were spitting on FroomeDawg long before this palaver. They didn't trust him or Sky.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Jul 2018)

rich p said:


> To be honest, the French roadside fans were spitting on FroomeDawg long before this palaver. They didn't trust him or Sky.



Well now the UCI have said he has no case to answer he will be fine. I guess Castelli are now doubling production of fan team kit for all the French fans they will gain over the next few days.


----------



## Dave Davenport (2 Jul 2018)

True, but this palaver will have definitely raised the vitriol quite a few notches.


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

The French will be stocking up on tyres to burn.


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

Don't forget, we've still got Dr. Freeman's book to look forward to.


----------



## roadrash (2 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> Don't forget, we've still got Dr. Freeman's book to look forward to.



I will go and reserve a copy forthwith...….or then again... maybe not


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2018)

lazybloke said:


> I only watch the Tour for the scenery anyway


I thought it was @marmion with the Marcel crush?


----------



## Dave Davenport (2 Jul 2018)

ASO dropping objection.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pru...s-froome-from-tour-de-france-is-now-obsolete/


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> Don't forget, we've still got Dr. Freeman's book to look forward to.


Do we know the title yet? I'm tempted to go place a bet on "How To Inject Without Needles" and "Not To Be Taken Internally".


----------



## mjr (2 Jul 2018)

Dave Davenport said:


> ASO dropping objection.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pru...s-froome-from-tour-de-france-is-now-obsolete/


"the superior authority [the UCI and WADA – ed.] has indicated that there is no offence" - not exactly wholehearted support there from Preudhomme...


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

WADA will not appeal and have included some more detail of the findings

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> Don't forget, we've still got Dr. Freeman's book to look forward to.



Let's just hope he doesn't lose his laptop containing the only copy of the manuscript.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> WADA will not appeal and have included some more detail of the findings
> 
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case




Sounds like he was puffing on his way into the testing area.

This is pretty key:
"

Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

*the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose*;
an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
the sample may be considered not to be an AAF."


----------



## MikeG (2 Jul 2018)

Glad to see a decision has finally been made. I assume the TdF organisers will be reversing their decision not to allow him to compete.

Just a minor aside: the use of this inhaler is apparently not covered by TUEs:



> The substance - which Froome says is used to help manage his asthma - is permitted without the use of a therapeutic use exemption but only within certain doses.



BBC

So it could be said that this whole saga should be in another thread.


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2018)

smutchin said:


> Let's just hope he doesn't lose his laptop containing the only copy of the manuscript.


First salvos fired

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...ys-jiffy-bag-doctor-richard-freeman-672rvfrlw

(you can read two Times Articles a week if you register)


----------



## ColinJ (2 Jul 2018)

I have often seen Froome coughing and spluttering when being interviewed immediately after tough mountain stage finishes. You can bet that he would have reached for an inhaler as soon as he got off his bike. If that is accepted as producing an adverse result then the UCI/WADA are pretty much saying that their rules/tests are unfair!



smutchin said:


> Let's just hope he doesn't lose his laptop containing the only copy of the manuscript.


He's keeping a hardcopy this time.




But somebody should tell him not to store it in his laptop bag ...


----------



## Phaeton (2 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> (you can read two Times Articles a week if you register)


Hurry, sale ends Sunday July 1st

Don't you just love the IT savi up to the minute newspaper industry


----------



## rich p (2 Jul 2018)

MikeG said:


> Glad to see a decision has finally been made. I assume the TdF organisers will be reversing their decision not to allow him to compete.
> 
> Just a minor aside: the use of this inhaler is apparently not covered by TUEs:
> 
> ...


All that has been known by everyone interested from Day 1.
If you read previous posts you'll see that the ASO acceptance has been commented upon.


----------



## Bollo (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Statement from WADA.
> https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case
> 
> _WADA’s position is as follows:
> ...


It's still very much "Not Proven" in the style of Scots law and it's certainly not going to persuade the French cycling public to be pouring their carefully accrued buckets of pish down the poorly functioning plumbing.


----------



## brommers (2 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> The court of French public opinion may not have closed the case.


Who gives a f**k about them?


----------



## lazybloke (2 Jul 2018)

brommers said:


> Who gives a f**k about them?


I wouldn't mind a comedy giant inhaler. I'd be worried about more "direct" protests.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Jul 2018)

Can we just move on and let Froome carry on being the best GC rider of his generation.


----------



## brommers (2 Jul 2018)

He's had a load of crap aimed at him in previous years, so I don't think he's going to be too bothered.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (2 Jul 2018)

neilb1906 said:


> Mr Pro tour Punditry
> 
> I obviously bow to your better memory, however, the fact remains that the TdF organisers, for decades, did very little to address the drugs cheats in the nineties , in my opinion. The loss to revenue by excluding the star racers of the day, mostly drug fuelled, was too much to risk.


If you look at the Valverde decision you'll see that highlighted that 1) you need to be guilty of something and 2) you can't be punished twice for the same thing, or something like that.

As for the 90s, the UCI and everyone else protected the dopers.

As for Froome, I don't need to live by the Valverde ruling and think he's a doping twat.


----------



## Beebo (2 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Well ... I dunno about that. I'm happy to accept WADA's statement. Afterall, they are WADA. I was happy enough to accept their "reasoned decision" over another famous rider.
> 
> I'm a bit less happy that it's (probably) come about in this case due to the superior resources that Sky could bring to bear in his defence, resources sufficient to make WADA retract requirements of the testing protocol (the requirement for the PK test) I imagine (but don't know) that Petacci and Ulissi could well have got off given access to similar resources.
> 
> But hey ho, that's really nothing new. As the old song goes "it's the same, the 'ole world over, isn't it a blimmin' shame".


Tyson Fury’s infected boar meat case threatened to bankrupt UK Anti doping before they agreed a compromise. 
It does seem that you can just spend your way out of a problem and the authorities don’t have the resources to defend cases. 
How many thousand pages of evidence did Froome’s lawyers submit?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Jul 2018)

Only one


----------



## rich p (2 Jul 2018)

I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
Or indeed for any other rider.


----------



## FishFright (2 Jul 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> Only one


 Was it a cheque ?


----------



## DRM (2 Jul 2018)

I think this leak just fed into the U.K tabloids deep seated desire to build someone up, then drop from in it from a great height just for the fun of destroying them, as far as I'm concerned I hope Froome wins the T de F again, accompanied by a podium full of British riders, let's see how the French like that!.
I know that Sky are going to suffer some serious abuse on the road, sadly I don't think the authorities will do much to protect them.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Jul 2018)

If it is truly an inconsistent test then all riders/teams should be happy that Sky had the resources and profile to get it sorted. However, if the bullied their way to the conclusion then it is yet another sad day for cycling. The problem is, as usual we have no real way to know.


----------



## Adam4868 (2 Jul 2018)

rich p said:


> I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
> Or indeed for any other rider.


I'd be pretty sure it has happened before to various riders,but just not leaked as this was.Froome would of been a big catch so to speak.But there was nothing to catch again.
How many times have we heard about Froome ? From having a hidden motor to that wasn't a natural climb,blah blah and yet I haven't seen anything to prove other than he's a unbelievable racer ! I'll stick with taking him at his word,if he never won anything again what he's achieved is still some feat !
The meticulous planning and the actual ride of Froome in stage 19 of the Giro and the overall victory left most gobsmacked.
As for the French haters angle I sort of get it,they crave a winner and all they see is the British riders getting a taste so to speak.Skys dominance in grand tours is hard to crack.
There time will come I'm sure,maybe just not when Froomes riding !


----------



## Daddy Pig (3 Jul 2018)

rich p said:


> I can't help wondering that if this was a natural excessive overdose, then it may well happen again in similar circumstances. I wonder if the UCI would issue another AAF.
> Or indeed for any other rider.


Urine tests for this sort of drug are pretty useless as dehydration can have a huge impact on the accuracy of the results. 
The stated maximum amount you could take and get away with is 8 puffs in a 12 hour period. If you have asthma you could use that number in less than 10 minutes let alone what dehydration will do to alter the results. 

As he got tested numerous times and never had an adverse result, added to the fact that this only helps those with asthma then this is and always has been a bu11sh1t story IMHO. Hopefully he'll give the frogs a damned good thrashing...


----------



## hoopdriver (3 Jul 2018)

I think the authorities knew, or at least suspected, there were flaws with this test and that Sky were prepared, and had the resources, to take this all the way.

As far as Froome goes, even if one was prepared to doubt his integrity - and I personally don’t - you’d also have to believe him to be extraordinarily stupid to “dope” with something that not only would have no beneficial effect but to do it in such a way and under such circumstances that being caught would be a certainty.

I think justice has been served, but I also think Froome is extremely lucky that it panned out this way. A lot of face was at stake for many people.


----------



## Bollo (3 Jul 2018)

My take on it all is that Sky pushed the current rules to the edge, made a mistake and got caught out. I doubt they're the only team seeking competitive advantage through the loopholes in the TUE and dose-restricted drugs rules, but they were the ones that were caught. Personally I don't buy the ethics argument that Lappartient put out - if the advantage is there and technically within the rules then teams and riders will always look to exploit it. I don't think any worse of Froome and Sky for the incident, but at the same time I don't have a particularly starry-eyed view of professional sportspeople.

I do think there's a real issue with rider safety for this edition. Whatever the hypocrisies and history, Team Sky are a new US Postal as far as the French are concerned. I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.


----------



## hoopdriver (3 Jul 2018)

I might agree with you as regards Sky's ethics and willingness to push things as far as the letter of the law allows, but what possible marginal gain are they going to get by Froome's inhaling 19% too much salbutamol? At worst its was a screw up in terms of measuring dosage - more likely, as seems to have been the case, the test itself is flawed.


----------



## lazybloke (3 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> *My take on it all is that Sky pushed the current rules to the edge, made a mistake and got caught out*. I doubt they're the only team seeking competitive advantage through the loopholes in the TUE and dose-restricted drugs rules, but they were the ones that were caught. Personally I don't buy the ethics argument that Lappartient put out - if the advantage is there and technically within the rules then teams and riders will always look to exploit it. I don't think any worse of Froome and Sky for the incident, but at the same time I don't have a particularly starry-eyed view of professional sportspeople.
> 
> I do think there's a real issue with rider safety for this edition. Whatever the hypocrisies and history, Team Sky are a new US Postal as far as the French are concerned. I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.



I'd agree to the extent that mysterious jiffy bags, missing medical records, and discrepancies about the no needles policy (etc etc) all look extremely dodgy.
But Froome has so far been shown to be more transparent ; eg the Fancy Bears leaks only confirmed details he'd previously discussed in public.

I see @hoopdriver has beaten me to my point: the AAF fiasco would have been more damning if it was related to performance-enhancing medication. Just look at the outcome of Contador and his clenbuterol test.

Sky could help to recover their reputation by loudly/proudly & actively promoting _and facilitating _testing of their riders at any time.


----------



## Phaeton (3 Jul 2018)

Sky have that much money if they wanted to they could independently test all their riders everyday & publish the results everyday, but that would then leave them with a dilemma what happens if somebody tested positive, maybe the wrong word, but if they were the wrong side of the line, would they then publish that?


----------



## Crackle (3 Jul 2018)

I said earlier, it was probably Froome's wish to avoid applying for a TUE after all the furore from the Fancy Bears leaks which led to this situation and him maxing out his inhaler rather than using a more powerful drug under a TUE


----------



## Adam4868 (3 Jul 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-process-lack-detail-annoy-organisers-experts
He's said he'll be making information public in the next few days.


----------



## Bollo (3 Jul 2018)

Adam4868 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-process-lack-detail-annoy-organisers-experts
> He's said he'll be making information public in the next few days.


I've just read through this. The last couple of paras are interesting and in much better words describe my unease in the way that UCI/WADA seem to have reasoned themselves around absolving the AAF without a pharmacokinetic study.

Anyways, what's done is done so I'm going to step out, enjoy the tour and finish off my Inhaler costume.


----------



## Adam4868 (3 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> I've just read through this. The last couple of paras are interesting and in much better words describe my unease in the way that UCI/WADA seem to have reasoned themselves around absolving the AAF without a pharmacokinetic study.
> 
> Anyways, what's done is done so I'm going to step out, enjoy the tour and finish off my Inhaler costume.


Inhaler costume...that's so last year.Im getting me tattoo finished.


----------



## rich p (3 Jul 2018)

Maybe you're right, I really don't know, but the difference between Froome and Ulissi and Petacchi, is that he'd been medicating up to the limit on numerous days whilst being dehydrated every day presumably.
I'm not defending the science but it would be impossible to replicate the conditions for a pharmacokinetic study.
And if the science isn't strong enough to defend the salbutamol test then the test isn't fit for purpose.


----------



## si_c (3 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> But I'm prepared to trust WADA's view. More so than I would trust the UCI, and it goes without saying more than I'd trust Sky (ie not at all).



That's my view, WADA have absolutely every incentive to be consistent and demand the highest standards for athletes, failing to do so would invalidate all the work they've done across all sports, and not just cycling. They don't have an axe to grind in this instance.

If the UCI had just signed off on it and there was no comment from WADA or they were issuing a statement to the contrary then it would be a different situation entirely. 

I've done some reading to understand what's happened a bit with the test and understand the testing process. From what I understand whilst his Salbutamol level must not exceed 1000, the actual threshold used for the test is 1200 - because of inaccuracies with the test. In addition the test is designed to work with the average person, not someone who is dehydrated, and that compensating for that dehydration would bring his tested level under the decision threshold. 

I think it only fair that if someone is dehydrated (which will be the case with most endurance athletes) then this should be accounted for in the testing methodologies used. 

To my mind, this should be applied retroactively to other riders who have had an AAF under the same circumstances.


----------



## smutchin (3 Jul 2018)

si_c said:


> compensating for that dehydration would bring his tested level under the decision threshold



My understanding was that he was still over the decision threshold even after adjustment, but WADA accepted that it was possible for this to happen without exceeding the permitted inhaled dose.

Basically, what @rich p says is spot on - WADA no longer have faith in their own testing procedures and limits for salbutamol.


----------



## Slaav (3 Jul 2018)

Firstly, whether the Sky 'Death Star' or their lawyers have bulldozed through the rules or not, it seems irrelevant at this stage?

WADA seem to have agreed with the logic applied and successfully argued. They have agreed that there is no case to answer by CF/Sky.

Personally, I think he is most likely 'innocent' of this 'offence' (well, non offence in fact) and I do believe that although lines are peered over, they are not actually crossed. I think a lot of the PR is actually white noise to be honest.

The interesting part for me is retrospective exoneration of previous AAFs which could be expensive and a minefield? Two well known ones spring to mind so I am off to read up on those again now....


----------



## mjr (3 Jul 2018)

Slaav said:


> The interesting part for me is retrospective exoneration of previous AAFs which could be expensive and a minefield? Two well known ones spring to mind so I am off to read up on those again now....


I think the bits about "a documented illness" and "demonstrated within-subject variability" may prevent that.


----------



## User169 (3 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> I don't want the TdF to turn into a cycling-themed remake of The Warriors.



That sounds awesome! 

(Great movie, btw)


----------



## Bollo (3 Jul 2018)

DP said:


> That sounds awesome!
> 
> (Great movie, btw)


"Team Sky, come out to plaeeeeyyyy (clink, clink, clink)...."


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (3 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> "Team Sky, come out to plaeeeeyyyy (clink, clink, clink)...."


With the bottles full of urine...


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jul 2018)

This 23 minute video has an interesting discussion of the implications of the Froome case ...


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2018)

So we finally get a bit more light into the darkness we've all been trying to see into

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

"With an adjustment for dehydration, Froome's stage 18 Vuelta sample was still 19.05 per cent over the decision limit"

And amusingly...

"Froome doesn't hold a grudge against Hinault. "He's one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed, but if I see him I'll very happily explain it all in a bit more detail"

Did he just call Hinault a bit of an old doderrer. Cor blimey!


----------



## hoopdriver (4 Jul 2018)

Amusingly disdainful, wasn’t it? And nothing that Hinault didn’t have coming.


----------



## rich p (4 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> So we finally get a bit more light into the darkness we've all been trying to see into
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/
> 
> ...


And this bit is interesting if true.

"There are a lot of athletes who have been through this process and been cleared of wrongdoing without the cases being made public," Froome says. "People need to remember that. They are comparing mine to two or three others who received suspensions, but have failed to mention — because they aren't public — all the other cyclists and other athletes who have been through a similar process and been cleared. Quite a few reached out to me, shared their information and explained what they have been through. That gave me some hope."


----------



## Jimidh (4 Jul 2018)

Some light relief - this Sky Van conveniently parked outside my pharmacy yesterday and I couldn’t resist taking this picture of Chris riding up to pick up his inhalers.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2018)

This is from The Times in an interview with the Sports Scientist responsible for the Salbutamol regulations...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f

_The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.

Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.

Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”

Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.

“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.

“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.

“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”

Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.

Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment._


Now that's it's all finally coming out, what people were saying about the failed test is beginning to look just a little bit more stupid.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Can you summarise?


Up until now it has been up to the athlete to explain why a test sample was positive. It appears that Froome's defence argued that there were technical reasons why the test might not be as reliable as had previously been assumed. It would be up to WADA to prove that their test worked properly and they clearly did not have the confidence to go to court with it. Not only does that make the future of the Salbutamol limit very questionable, but it also opens up the possibility of tests for other drugs being questioned in the same way. It might be considered acceptable for a test to produce a 1% false positive rate, but a 20% false positive rate definitely would not be.


----------



## Adam4868 (4 Jul 2018)

So after all the speculation and damning accusations it's back to business as usual for Froomey.Besides his riding I think it's shown more of his mental strength throughout.Its a shame because no matter how you look at it people will still judge this as "no smoke without fire" as such.
For me the main thing is he never doubted himself and never rose to the bait.There really never was a case to answer.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> Now that's it's all finally coming out, what people were saying about the failed test is beginning to look just a little bit more stupid.



I just had a look back over what I've said about it to check whether or not it makes me look stupid...

Erm...

In my defence, I feel I was misled by the sciencey stuff explaining why the limit was set as it was. Not my fault if the sciencey boffins then go and change their minds!


----------



## ColinJ (4 Jul 2018)

Well, one thing we know after watching the amazing Froome breakaway mountain stage at the end of the Giro is that Sky were making damn sure that he did not get dehydrated _that _day - it looked like he was getting handed a bottle every 15-20 minutes!


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2018)

smutchin said:


> I just had a look back over what I've said about it to check whether or not it makes me look stupid...
> 
> Erm...
> 
> In my defence, I feel I was misled by the sciencey stuff explaining why the limit was set as it was. Not my fault if the sciencey boffins then go and change their minds!


Hah! Did you look or is that a catch all. I wasn't particularly thinking of people on CC but dumb articles by people who should know better. I'm not thinking of any former riders or Aussie sports scientists or owt.


----------



## smutchin (4 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> Hah! Did you look or is that a catch all. I wasn't particularly thinking of people on CC but dumb articles by people who should know better. I'm not thinking of any former riders or Aussie sports scientists or owt.



I looked. Actually, I was genuinely interested to remind myself what I'd said previously, and I don't think I was that bad...



mjr said:


> The Outer Line: Can science rescue Chris Froome? http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/the-outer-line/the-outer-line-can-science-rescue-chris-froome_460424 "Dr. Bill Apollo ... examines the Chris Froome controversy from a medical perspective, and concludes that it is unlikely to end well for Froome."





smutchin said:


> I find the Froome salbutamol case puzzling. To get caught with that much salbutamol in his system is a real schoolboy error - from that velonews piece, it seems it can only possibly be explained by Froome having taken a single massive dose of salbutamol, probably as a pill rather than from a puffer. But why on earth would he do that? I can't help feeling there's more to the story than has yet been revealed.
> 
> The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.





Crackle said:


> Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.



So, it seems Dr Bill Apollo may not have been quite as credible an expert as we first thought. And to be fair to Sky, the "prevarication and obfuscation" may have been more a case of "rigorous legal proceedings behind the scenes", but Brailsford never helps in these situations with his mealy-mouthed statements to the press.

There are a few people who say stupid things on CC, but mostly I think we're a level-headed bunch when it comes to assessing the available evidence. I guess we have to accept that the evidence available to us as casual observers may not be comprehensive or definitive.

I also feel vindicated not to trust anything Ross Tucker says as being impartial.


----------



## FishFright (4 Jul 2018)

It seems that the new clean is now 19.5% higher than it was a few weeks ago ....


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2018)

FishFright said:


> It seems that the new clean is now 19.5% higher than it was a few weeks ago ....


Or the whole Salbutamol test is flawed.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 Jul 2018)

smutchin said:


> ...but mostly I think we're a level-headed bunch...



Can I distance myself from this statement?


----------



## User169 (4 Jul 2018)

From the Freeman book: big turds from the Sky riders.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jul 2018)

DP said:


> From the Freeman book: big turds from the Sky riders.




Nasty Twitter account, doesn't look like the book is worth reading though.


----------



## User169 (4 Jul 2018)

Crackle said:


> *Nasty Twitter account*, doesn't look like the book is worth reading though.



Apologies if so. It was retweeted by Ross Tucker.


----------



## uncle_adolph (4 Jul 2018)

I thought the comments from Grenadier in response to this article were quite interesting.....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wad...l-loophole-by-avoiding-pharmacokinetic-study/


----------



## rich p (4 Jul 2018)

smutchin said:


> I also feel vindicated not to trust anything Ross Tucker says as being impartial.


I had a little spat with Tucker the other day on Twitter remarking how sad it was that he'd become a tabloid type reactionary.


----------



## biking_fox (4 Jul 2018)

Froome's Giro data is released to the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122 who find nothing suspicious in it, just meticulous planning. 

Personally I found it fascinating insight into just how detailed you need to be to succeed. But I didn't bother downloading all the charts.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (6 Jul 2018)

There's a growing list of scientists and doctors who have done wrong to Sky; they should be ashamed of themselves, without them there would be no suspicions...


----------



## Bollo (7 Jul 2018)

Quite a good summary of the state of play...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...es-out-fighting-before-tour-de-france-defence

Lappartient feels hard done by. Poor UCI. I might send a donation.


> Speaking to the BBC, Lappartient said: “Froome had more financial support to find good experts to explain the situation.” Lappartient said that Froome “brought a lot of experts with him to try to demonstrate that he’s not guilty” and added that the UCI was “in the middle of a big battle between Team Sky and the test itself and Wada.”


----------



## mjr (7 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> Lappartient feels hard done by. Poor UCI. I might send a donation.


Maybe he's sore that Cookson stopped the accused being expected to make a donation?


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Jul 2018)

Nice to see that Lappartient is following the UCI tradition of having a president who is a complete arse. He should be happy that someone had the ability to be able to challenge what is turning out to be a totally flawed rule, not bemoaning the fact that they can prove themselves innocent.


----------



## StuAff (7 Jul 2018)

UCI is just sticking to the usual 'principles' of worldwide sporting administrations....


----------



## mjr (17 Jul 2018)

Hinault "no regrets" about calling for riders to strike https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/hinault-no-regrets-froome-rider-strike-remarks_472127


----------



## roadrash (17 Jul 2018)

Hinault is a bit of a nob ,


----------



## Bollo (21 Jul 2018)

Instead of starting a new thread this seems as good a dumping ground as any.

Today’s Wiggo Q & A on ITV4 then. I missed the bit where he discussed the Jiffybag, but found a (hopefully reliable) transcript...



> There are things that have come to light with this whole thing that we’ve found out since that are quite scary actually and it’s very sinister. We’re still not at the bottom of it, we’re finding new stuff out daily to do with the package that never was and all this stuff and it’s quite frightening actually....
> 
> We’re still working on it, still trying to piece it all together. Not a legal team, just other people coming to us now and saying: ‘You know this has happened, don’t you?’ We can debate TUEs and that’s one thing, but where it went after that with everything else – there is a film to be made there. I’d love it to all come out. Once it’s all stacked up and pieced together it’s quite shocking.



WTAF! This sounds like something Trump might say, but he must have some reason for lobbing this poop-grenade. Also chucking it in on day one of his two day stint on the tour team? He knows this will get at least some traction in the press, but he’s going to have to come up with something more concrete soon or any credibility he had is shot.

Opinions?


----------



## Adam4868 (21 Jul 2018)

Personally speaking as much as I like him (a bit !) I think Wiggins will do anything for publicity,he's desperate to be on TV and the like !


----------



## Crackle (21 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> Instead of starting a new thread this seems as good a dumping ground as any.
> 
> Today’s Wiggo Q & A on ITV4 then. I missed the bit where he discussed the Jiffybag, but found a (hopefully reliable) transcript...
> 
> ...


When he spoke it, it came out like a stream of consciousness, rather than a considered, deliberate statement, which is how it might read. However, my memory is hazy now but he said he wasn't invited to speak at the hearing, which I don't believe is entirely correct, or that his written answers weren't included in the report but I thought they were published. I got the impression that he hadn't managed to weave a narrative out of chewygate yet, whereas he had for Froomegate.

He did make some good arguments for why TUE's are needed and why they should be private, with the exception of the dodgy std analogy, which was a case of, really? He also listens to Lance Armstrong's podcast which I think is well dodgy!


----------



## Bollo (22 Jul 2018)

Thanks Crax. I wasn't able to watch all of yesterday's stage coverage so the context is useful.

Don't know what to think about it all TBH. Whether it was just him shooting his mouth, messing with people for giggles (I seem to remember him telling a story about blowing smoke up Jalabert's bum before I went out) or a more deliberate play to the nutjob wing of cycling fandom.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2018)

Bollo said:


> Thanks Crax. I wasn't able to watch all of yesterday's stage coverage so the context is useful.
> 
> Don't know what to think about it all TBH. Whether it was just him shooting his mouth, messing with people for giggles (I seem to remember him telling a story about blowing smoke up Jalabert's bum before I went out) or a more deliberate play to the nutjob wing of cycling fandom.


I'd hesitate to call him an outright liar but he shifts far enough from the truth to cast himself and events he was involved in, in a positive light. I still hold the impression, despite his protestations, that he knew he was acting unethically if not illegally, which is not to say he doesn't have some interesting observations to make or that I don't like him.


----------



## Beebo (14 Jan 2019)

Hang on. There is something fish going on here with the dodgy doctor. 
More circumstantial evidence for suspicious goings on. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46870091


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Jan 2019)

Beebo said:


> Hang on. There is something fish going on here with the dodgy doctor.
> More circumstantial evidence for suspicious goings on.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46870091


I'm sure Sky will have an explanation out in a jiffy.


----------



## FishFright (14 Jan 2019)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'm sure Sky will have an explanation out in a jiffy.



Jiffy , snort


----------



## Strathlubnaig (15 Jan 2019)

Beebo said:


> Hang on. There is something fish going on here with the dodgy doctor.
> More circumstantial evidence for suspicious goings on.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46870091


Sky, as a sponsor, must have knew this was coming down, which perhaps prompted their fairly short notice decision to pull the plug.


----------

