Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[Crackle]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081
from bbc sport 5/3/18

 

[Bobby Mhor]

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]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081

That is pretty harsh

 

[rich p]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081

That is pretty harsh

Congrats on being the 3rd person to post that link

 

[Daddy Pig]

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]

MPs complaining about "ethics" who'd have thought.....

 

[jowwy]

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]

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]

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]

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