Froome and Wiggins TUEs

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

david k

Hi
Location
North West
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

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
its not my claim, but the claim within the Tweet sent out by cycling plus......

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

Hi
Location
North West
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

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
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'.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjr

Slick

Guru
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

Veteran
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

Guru
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'
If that's true, they were never cheating.
 

Bobby Mhor

Guru
Location
Behind You
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

probably out cycling
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:whistle:

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.
 
Top Bottom