Wiggins critical of Sky policy

[Strathlubnaig]

http://road.cc/content/news/74782-bradley-wiggins-takes-issue-team-skys-zero-tolerance-approach
Sensible words.

 

[thom]

http://road.cc/content/news/74782-bradley-wiggins-takes-issue-team-skys-zero-tolerance-approach
Sensible words.

It stinks

 

[Dan B]

"I think in some cases the reformed characters - David Millar and that - as people who've actually experienced it they can help youngsters on the way not to go, and I think in a way we need some of those people within this sport,"

Within the sport, yes, but it doesn't follow - and there's nothing in this report stating that he said - that you need them within the team

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I agree with Wiggins, as I have said before here...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I reckon cycling should set up a competent body to sort this kind of stuff out....

 

[Gary E]

I think the punishment for being caught should act as a real deterrent.

There's a world of difference between thinking "if I'm caught I'll just have a couple of years off the circuit" and "if I'm caught I'll be vilified and never ride competitively again"

It's harsh on the individuals but ultimately has to be better for the sport as a whole?

 

[beastie]

Also the bans should not be backdated, as happened to Contador.2 years from date of suspension is fine for lower level first time infringments, but it would be much more of a deterrent if set at 3 or even four. Four is surely going to ruin a persons career. As an aside, does a banned athlete still get tested and participate in the whereabouts program?

 

[ColinJ]

As an aside, does a banned athlete still get tested and participate in the whereabouts program?

They are supposed to make themselves available for testing for 6 months before they compete again to allow their biological passport profile to be built. Ditto for those who have retired but who later change their minds about it and decide to 'unretire'. Unless they are Lance Armstrong, in which case that rule can conveniently be forgotten ...

 

[beastie]

I think a banned athlete should still be subject to random testing, and continue in the blood passport etc as if they were competing. Also I must say I am keen on Sky's no doping policy, if the whole sports was closed to drugs cheats then we would see a lot less of it.

What really needs to happen is root and branch at the UCI. If Fat Pat is not bent, then he must be incompetent and or stupid. Whichever it is, he is no fit leader for the boy scouts, nevermind the UCI. I know Oldroadman has pointed out that the current likely alternatives are not necessarily any better, but change at the top is needed and now. The farce of the independent commission is a case in point. Fecking shambles looked over by idiots (at best) or corrupt, greedy idiots(at worst).

 

[oldroadman]

I'm not sure he is criticising the Sky policy, which is clearly stated. What he is REPORTED to be saying is that there may be a place for reformed offenders within the sport, as advocates for the correct way of doing things. As Julich and Millar have shown. I believe that someone who has made one error should have the chance to redeem themselves, albeit the ban for first offence could be extended to 4 years, enough to seriously disrupt a career, prevent one Olympic participation, and provide a significant deterrent.
the caveat is that this should apply to ALL sports, every single one, big money ones included, with zero exceptions. I think that every competitor in a professional capacity should be on the ADAMS system, whereabouts required for one hour a day five days a week for unannounced testing, blood and urine. If anyone believes this is an intrusion into their personal life, two questions: Do you really want to be a professional sportperson, because this goes with the job? Do you want to compete clean and suffer defeat to suspect competitors?
Answer, to the first, is yes, and if you don't like it, go and do something else.
Answer to the second, has to be yes unless, of course, you want to join the ranks of the "unclean". In which case find a sport that does not care/want to know (insert your choice here).

 

[Winnershsaint]

OMG I dread to think what they'll make of this in 'The Clinic!' Total breakdown of mental and bodily functions no doubt.

 

[AndyRM]

I'm not sure he is criticising the Sky policy, which is clearly stated. What he is REPORTED to be saying is that there may be a place for reformed offenders within the sport, as advocates for the correct way of doing things. As Julich and Millar have shown. I believe that someone who has made one error should have the chance to redeem themselves, albeit the ban for first offence could be extended to 4 years, enough to seriously disrupt a career, prevent one Olympic participation, and provide a significant deterrent.
the caveat is that this should apply to ALL sports, every single one, big money ones included, with zero exceptions. I think that every competitor in a professional capacity should be on the ADAMS system, whereabouts required for one hour a day five days a week for unannounced testing, blood and urine. If anyone believes this is an intrusion into their personal life, two questions: Do you really want to be a professional sportperson, because this goes with the job? Do you want to compete clean and suffer defeat to suspect competitors?
Answer, to the first, is yes, and if you don't like it, go and do something else.
Answer to the second, has to be yes unless, of course, you want to join the ranks of the "unclean". In which case find a sport that does not care/want to know (insert your choice here).

This. 100% this.