Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[hopless500]

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]

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]

Now come on, you not going to tell me this isn't true are you

 

[jowwy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Close the thread. If only to sort out the awful spelling...

Keep spelling out of it

 

[lazybloke]

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]

You haven't read it have you?

Yes......next question

 

[Bollo]

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]

as anybody seen the latest statement from Shane Sutton??

 

[Crackle]

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]

The Sutton statement is here

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...iggins-freeman-come-forward-tell-truth-371809

 

[Bollo]

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.