The number of top cyclists taking medication for asthma is interesting. Is it really well above the rate in the population as a whole or is that a mistaken impression?
The number of top cyclists taking medication for asthma is interesting. Is it really well above the rate in the population as a whole or is that a mistaken impression?rate in Gen Pop ~10%
'Except for normal vaccinations' Maybe he was a bit confused by that..
Only Wiggo looks dodgy so far.
Well said.Only Wiggo looks dodgy so far.
How does he look dodgy? On rare occasions he took a medicine recommended by his doctor and formally permitted by the relevant authorities.
Even if he had taken triamcinolone illegally (which is in no way the case), it would have had a tiny effect on performance. It’s nothing like the oxygen-vector doping of the past, which made a mockery of racing.
I think it’s a disgrace that the Russians have hacked into medical records and confused millions of people about doping by publishing them in this way.
Meanwhile, the use of TUEs in cycling has fallen dramatically over the last few years as the authorities have become stricter with issuing them. This is normal and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that Wiggins was fully permitted to use the substances he used.
It stinks. The really stinky bit is the granting of TUEs of a substance known to be a super effective PED. Did Wiggins need it for medical reasons? His former doctor says he would never have prescribed it.and I'm sure that his FORMER doctor is entirely impartial on the subject :P I have opinions on how clean/dirty certain riders are, so do you; we're not impartial either.
I heard rumours a few years back that Sky abuse the TUE system to allow PED use. I don't find this news contradicting that rumour.
It stinks. The really stinky bit is the granting of TUEs of a substance known to be a super effective PED. Did Wiggins need it for medical reasons? His former doctor says he would never have prescribed it.and I'm sure that his FORMER doctor is entirely impartial on the subject :P I have opinions on how clean/dirty certain riders are, so do you; we're not impartial either.
I heard rumours a few years back that Sky abuse the TUE system to allow PED use. I don't find this news contradicting that rumour.
Rumours schmumours. Whatever. You cant disprove rumours, just as you cant prove a negative.
You have to have some system of rules - or just give up and allow uncontrolled drug use. FanA or ForumUserB says "its dodgy as fuck" isnt a basis for enforcement, sorry.
Until a rider is proven guilty of breaking a rule, it's all just mud.
..... the granting of TUEs of a substance known to be a super effective PED. ........
I'm not convinced you have much of a handle on this matt.I believe Armstrong n Contador were banned and lost TdeF titles. The system isnt perfect (of course) but it is there. Riders dope, some get caught (what's new?).
There is a 'system of rules' but as we know from Armstrong's backdated TUE after testing positive, UCI's attempt to bury Contador's clen pozzy, Froome's 'fast-tracked' TUE, Armistead's 3 missed tests and suddenly-reversal-of-automatic-ban-so-that-she-could-ride-the-Olympics, the enforcement of these rules depends on who you are.
What makes you think everyman and his dog would be granted a TUE?
If you want to know more see what David Millar and Jorg Jakcse have to say...
See .......... etc
See .......... etc
I.ve read Miller's comments and note the medication is available to all riders via a TUE if required and neither Wiggins or Sky broke any rules and WADA did not express any concern.
Of course, there will always be those who do not believe that man landed on the moon or such like and conspiracy theory will abound.
Do you think Wiggins should relinquish his TdF title?
It seems likely that there's a selection process at work here — if asthmatic cyclists are the only ones who can legitimately use steroids, then we can expect to find a lot of asthmatic cyclists at the elite end of the sport. This could well have been an unconscious process rather than a deliberate strategy, but who knows?
On rare occasions he took a medicine recommended by his doctor and formally permitted by the relevant authorities.
I think it’s a disgrace that the Russians have hacked into medical records
Wiggins was fully permitted to use the substances he used.
......... Of course, there will always be those who have a Pavlovian response to a British flag.
Also, past experience suggests that doping was not restricted to GT winners but also to those supporting those who won.
Quite cynical and appalling stereotyping IMO which I'm sure you would argue against if such a stance was to be directed against folk in other walks of life.
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?Whenever you want to. Or never, if you prefer.
Still no answer!
Interesting piece by David Walsh in the Sunday Times. Worth a read.
There is a 'system of rules' but as we know from Armstrong's backdated TUE after testing positive, UCI's attempt to bury Contador's clen pozzy, Froome's 'fast-tracked' TUE, Armistead's 3 missed tests and suddenly-reversal-of-automatic-ban-so-that-she-could-ride-the-Olympics, the enforcement of these rules depends on who you are.Except that one of Armitstead's missed tests was accepted as having been missed by the UCI official, not her: she was available & where she was supposed to be. And one of the other two was a filing error not a true missed test. So she missed two (one on a technicality).
I can't understand why there is such reluctance to answer a very simple question.
Except that one of Armitstead's missed tests was accepted as having been missed by the UCI official, not her: she was available & where she was supposed to be. And one of the other two was a filing error not a true missed test. So she missed two (one on a technicality).
I can't understand why there is such reluctance to answer a very simple question.
And you suggest others would be well suited to a career in politics.
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?
Just a few decades?
Personally, I can't see any professional sport ever being 'clean'. It's a pipedream.
I suspect more information will come out over time about how some Sky riders have got unexpected improvements in performance. After that, questions about whether Wiggo should keep his TdF would become much easier to answer.
Not at all. You assume I am British, assume I have loyalty to Britain, Sky or Wiggins, and assume I will respond in a particular way.
Surprising that a simple question will be avoided.
I suspect more information will come out over time about how some Sky riders have got unexpected improvements in performance. After that, questions about whether Wiggo should keep his TdF would become much easier to answer.
What, you mean like Wiggo's big improvement when he rode for Garmin?
How much you want to bet?
It seems likely that there's a selection process at work here — if asthmatic cyclists are the only ones who can legitimately use steroids, then we can expect to find a lot of asthmatic cyclists at the elite end of the sport. This could well have been an unconscious process rather than a deliberate strategy, but who knows? There are a lot of people in the sport who are cynical enough to have spotted the opportunity.
(As an asthmatic cyclist myself, I sympathize, but since I don't race I can just keep the intensity low enough to avoid having to cough up buckets of mucus out of my lungs after every ride.)
See .......... etc
I.ve read Miller's comments and note the medication is available to all riders via a TUE if required and neither Wiggins or Sky broke any rules and WADA did not express any concern.
Of course, there will always be those who do not believe that man landed on the moon or such like and conspiracy theory will abound.
Do you think Wiggins should relinquish his TdF title?
I find your faith in sporting governing bodies rather quaint.
Equally, I don't doubt that you hold all those conspiracy theorists that doubted Lance Armstrong, in equal contempt.
Of course, there will always be those who have a Pavlovian response to a British flag.
What makes you think I should answer every question you pose? Especially when phrased in such a patronising manner.
I think as far as the concept of clean sport is concerned, all GT winners should relinquish their titles. That doesn't mean that I don't watch the races....but I have the background knowledge to know that what I am watching is a circus.
Think of procyclingsport as akin to WWE Wrestling, and you'll be about there.
It seems likely that there's a selection process at work here — if asthmatic cyclists are the only ones who can legitimately use steroids, then we can expect to find a lot of asthmatic cyclists at the elite end of the sport. This could well have been an unconscious process rather than a deliberate strategy, but who knows? There are a lot of people in the sport who are cynical enough to have spotted the opportunity.
(As an asthmatic cyclist myself, I sympathize, but since I don't race I can just keep the intensity low enough to avoid having to cough up buckets of mucus out of my lungs after every ride.)
Diagnosed asthma is very significantly over represented in the most successful populations of elite sportspeople - I use that phrase rather than asthmatics, although clearly some are the latter also. That is not consistent with the impact of asthma on respiratory capability and it's an important question to ask whether the drugs are leveling the playing field above the norm for both those with childhood induced asthma and those with later onset exercise induced/identified asthma.
One question I think is worth pondering is whether it is reasonable to allow someone to use drug treatment to increase their athletic potential beyond the natural genetic limitations they face - this may be asthma, or just wanting more respiratory capacity and less fatigue/faster recovery, but it might also apply to the lady with naturally low haematocrit and her EPO TUE or the low testosterone 'sufferer' and his testosterone TUE etc etc. What about the intersex athletes competing in the female classes?
The public media image is that sport is about natural talent and hard work. Using drugs to 'level the playing field' does not enter into that equation. Sorry, but I'm no world champion either. Genetics matter.
Personally, I've become jaundiced in my view of Team Sky, British Cycling and British Sport in general. The fawning nationalism of the Olympics did nothing to dispel my doubts and cynicism. Wiggin's TUE does nothing to make me feel more comfortable, but looks very confirmatory. Asking the Times to criticise Team Sky seems a long stretch, given its ownership, and I wonder whether they are hanging Wiggins out to dry, while trying to protect Sky, British Cycling and the rest. Maybe, they'll upset Wiggins enough for him to tell a whole lot more.
I'm sure LW&B can add something of greater value and real knowledge to this.
Mike
Edited to add - read up on Alberto Salazar and the Nike Oregon Project for some background in a non-cycling field.
Question is simple. If folk believe what Wiggins did was cheating, then do they believe he should be stripped of his title?
Fatuous, facile or whatever you want to say, the fact remains there seems little appetite to answer a simple question regarding the use of what some consider to be a PED rather than medication.
I can't understand why there is such reluctance to answer a very simple question.
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?
Just a few decades?
Personally, I can't see any professional sport ever being 'clean'. It's a pipedream.
I've not seen anything that would suggest Lemond's TdF wins weren't clean. I can't say that about the winners since then.
I thought that Sky were keen on the aggregation of marginal gains. I'd have been surprised if they didn't push the rules as far as they would go.
The UCI has come under fire in recent week concerning a Therapeutic Use Exemption given to Tour de France winner Chris Froome and the delays in Roman Kreuziger's UCI Biological Passport case. Cookson refused to go into specific details of Kreuziger's on-going case but confirmed that more will be done to improve the governance of TUEs, starting with better rules on how TUEs are permitted. He said the general ethics of the sport will come before a single rider's needs to use a specific banned medicine to stay in a race.
"There was a TUE Committee but it was only being used for exceptional cases. This was an entirely routine case and Dr Zorzoli approved it, as WADA confirmed two days later," he said justifying why Zorzoli was able to fast-track Froome's TUE during the Tour de Romandie.
"We've looked at how we canmake that process stronger. We've got a TUE committee and we will now use that Committee more. We'll use it for every TUE case. That may slow the process what's more important? An individual rider or the integrity of an entire sport? Frankly in my view, it's the integrity and reputation of the entire sport."
He is convinced that the same growth and success for cycling can be replicated and rediscovered in different countries, including Germany, which while being a cycling nation, has largely turned its back on professional racing.
"A lot of people are working hard behind the scenes to do some good work in Germany, that includes the Federation and some race promoters, people are working to put teams together too. I had a meeting in Germany yesterday. I can’t reveal any details but the picture is beginning to turn because of the problems of that era. Germany is the biggest economy in Europe and if we're not in Germany as a sport, we're going to suffer. I think we can get back in and the signs are there. As long as we keep our act together and don’t descend into the problems of the past, I'm optimistic that cycling can be strong again there and in other countries.”
Cookson clearly means doping when he talks about 'the problems of the past’.
I thought that Sky were keen on the aggregation of marginal gains. I'd have been surprised if they didn't push the rules as far as they would go.
This.
I've set PBs on my commute with an upper respiratory tract infection, but on prednisolone. What Brad was having injected is stronger. I've seen my peak flow leap 50l/min on pred. You feel like you are in beast mode. I have about a month's supply at home. I take them in my saddlebag on audax in case of difficulties - they are a get out of jail free card. My sis took some because she was feeling rough on The Old 240. She was going slow - my HR was at 105 before she took them. Half an hour later, it was at 145bpm.
I'd love to have seen Brad's numbers before and after levelling the playing field.
I'm on 50mg a day during an exacerbation. I think Froome was on 40mg. Feel really strong on it.
I don't think these TUEs are within the rules. It looks like another example of official bodies tacitly accepting doping.
There will always be borderline cases - this is sport! Watch an Olympic sprint relay final. Look at the UCI dimensions-of-bikes rules. etcI don't think these TUEs are within the rules. It looks like another example of official bodies tacitly accepting doping.
It's a borderline case that hinges on whether you accept Wiggins and Brailsford's explanation that he was suffering from a pollen allergy in the build-up to the Tour in 2012 and was legitimately prescribed the drug by a consultant purely for medicinal reasons..
You can either accept that, or you can take the oh-so-clever-sceptic role.
This isn't borderline.
So is the whole marginal gains stuff just a smokescreen? .... if anyone's running a doping programme it can only be providing the slightest of edges, unlike EPO.
So is the whole marginal gains stuff just a smokescreen? .... if anyone's running a doping programme it can only be providing the slightest of edges, unlike EPO.
Now read "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle. The protocol of doping that Lance (and Tyler to some degree) and his doctors developed towards the end of his career could easily still be carried out today and not be detected. That is (out of competition): microdosing EPO last thing at night - the testers cannot test overnight
It is reasonable to take from this that there are three small studies, together providing only marginal evidence that prednisolone has an effect on performance.
*snip*...
Locker room tittle tattle on the effect of drugs is just that, biased and unrepresentative.
There is a fair bit of the old Pavlovian dogmatic response to Rule Britannia, going on here.
There are none so blind as those that will not see...
Personally, I find it hard to believe that three injections mean Wiggins whole career was a fraud. Could one injection really have lasted for three weeks of the tour?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-interview-tues
I think he comes across as credible in this.
Look at his sorry little face
(http://i67.tinypic.com/v3f5fo.png)
Personally, I find it hard to believe that three injections mean Wiggins whole career was a fraud. Could one injection really have lasted for three weeks of the tour?
Wiggins won the Tour in 2012 and that was a result I wanted to have faith in. Now, I think he was kind of a puppet, just told what to do and when to do it. I think he did the same thing with his training, just so he didn’t have to think about it.
I see these TUEs as a loophole, and it’s something a lot of teams, including Sky, have exploited. They have not broken any rule, so you can’t call Wiggins a drug cheat. Unfortunately, you also have to ask the question: who is the guy at the UCI signing off on this? Back then, it was Mario Zorzoli, and now he’s gone; just disappeared off the face of the earth apparently.
For me, it’s all very disappointing.
Here's the view from one anonymous rider:Spot on. I wonder if anyone has gone back through the dates and mapped then against those photos of Wiggins looking stripped like Rasmussen.Quote from: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/the-secret-pro-cortisone-tues-world-championships-and-rider-transfer-season/Wiggins won the Tour in 2012 and that was a result I wanted to have faith in. Now, I think he was kind of a puppet, just told what to do and when to do it. I think he did the same thing with his training, just so he didn’t have to think about it.
I see these TUEs as a loophole, and it’s something a lot of teams, including Sky, have exploited. They have not broken any rule, so you can’t call Wiggins a drug cheat. Unfortunately, you also have to ask the question: who is the guy at the UCI signing off on this? Back then, it was Mario Zorzoli, and now he’s gone; just disappeared off the face of the earth apparently.
For me, it’s all very disappointing.
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/the-secret-pro-cortisone-tues-world-championships-and-rider-transfer-season/
Isn't everyone asked to sign a declaration when they fly that they know the contents of their luggage?Dunno, but I would guess there are limits e.g.
Isn't everyone asked to sign a declaration when they fly that they know the contents of their luggage?
Isn't everyone asked to sign a declaration when they fly that they know the contents of their luggage?
Not IME. They've even stopped asking whether you packed it yourself.
It's a shame, because it's completely undermined the value of his wins. Yeah, it was 'legal', but I doubt he would be permitted to do the same thing with the current TUE system.[my bold] That's completely a matter of personal opinion.
. It looks a lot like the latter.
(at least, for those who understand the issues)I see what you've done there.
It seems the more closely you can identify with rider, in nationality, language, the more a fan is willing to make an exceptions and say "he didn't break any rules!".Can you give an example of this sort of hypocrisy?
…but it's fully in line with the letter of the rules and their professional application.
Indeed.I think it's conceivable that he thought that he was talking it for pollen. It's that the drug is so powerful, it does more than put you "on a level playing field". I've had some of my best days on a bike on pred recovering from a chest infection.
His credibility is in tatters (at least, for those who understand the issues) because it is clear that he took this substance repeatedly for performance enhancing reasons, not for 'pollen allergy'.
Froome can't possibly be on drugs. Look at him - where the Hell would you put them?
Of course, Wiggins is currently taking the heat from Froome. Sky is, however, falling apart around them all
Indeed.
His credibility is in tatters (at least, for those who understand the issues) because it is clear that he took this substance repeatedly for performance enhancing reasons, not for 'pollen allergy'.
Though apparently not when Fancy Bears uses the media.
I have no confidence in UKAD.
Of course, Wiggins is currently taking the heat from Froome. Sky is, however, falling apart around them all
How so?
Froome's TUEs were nowhere near what Wiggins did (and don't forget that what Wiggins did was sanctioned and acceptable).
Surely you are not suggesting some form of 'motor-aid'?
The way I read it is that Sky took the opportunity presented by Wiggo's exercise-induced asthma and a quite-likely genuine medical issue to obtain the strongest possible medication allowed under the TUE rules extant at the time - even Wiggins said it was to 'level the playing field'. The moral question of whether anyone should be able to medically compensate for an illness in order to compete is arguable - and will be into eternity, no doubt.
However, the fact is what they did was within the rules, declared as happening at the time, and raised no objection from the governing bodies responsible - who had every opportunity to do so had they wished. There was no subterfuge, no attempt to hide what was happening. Therefore, as I see it, there is no reason for Sky or Wiggins to feel under any threat. The rules were subsequently changed, and will no doubt change again. But you can't judge people for actions which were legal and open at the time, but would not now be so.
It's a shame, because it's completely undermined the value of his wins. Yeah, it was 'legal', but I doubt he would be permitted to do the same thing with the current TUE system.[my bold] That's completely a matter of personal opinion.
He won under the rules in place at the time. Rules change (not just for drugs); no one loses their titles just cos they weren't wearing a modern helmet, for example.
I have no confidence in UKAD.
Well there you have it then. Let's abandon any evidence based conclusions and just go with trial be media ::-)
UKAD went after Lizzie Armitstead. They were overruled by CAS.
However there is a conflict of interest here. It'd be better handled by a supranational body. I was impressed by USADA going so hard after LA, so it can work.
UKAD went after Lizzie Armitstead. They were overruled by CAS.
My view is that such a loophole should be looked at and quite possibly tightened. It's quite normal for professional sportsmen to make the most of the rules as they stand - and indeed certain anti-Wiggo posters on this thread have said as much about other rules.It's a shame, because it's completely undermined the value of his wins. Yeah, it was 'legal', but I doubt he would be permitted to do the same thing with the current TUE system.[my bold] That's completely a matter of personal opinion.
He won under the rules in place at the time. Rules change (not just for drugs); no one loses their titles just cos they weren't wearing a modern helmet, for example.
Obviously. No one is going to take his victories away...but Sky abused a loophole to legally use PED's. If he was sick enough to require those injections, he shouldn't have been racing...so it'll be "Sir" Bradley from now on.
My view is that such a loophole should be looked at and quite possibly tightened. It's quite normal for professional sportsmen to make the most of the rules as they stand - and indeed certain anti-Wiggo posters on this thread have said as much about other rules.It's a shame, because it's completely undermined the value of his wins. Yeah, it was 'legal', but I doubt he would be permitted to do the same thing with the current TUE system.[my bold] That's completely a matter of personal opinion.
He won under the rules in place at the time. Rules change (not just for drugs); no one loses their titles just cos they weren't wearing a modern helmet, for example.
Obviously. No one is going to take his victories away...but Sky abused a loophole to legally use PED's. If he was sick enough to require those injections, he shouldn't have been racing...so it'll be "Sir" Bradley from now on.
If your opinion is that it's unethical to exploit any particular loophole, that's fair enough. I have a similar view about many rules in many sports (too long to list!). Discussing these is generally part of the fun of watching sport! But they're just personal opinions - the official results will always be what they are. No asterisks for loopholers. Maradonna's goals still stand.
Meanwhile, if you want to get rid of the "Sir" in "Sir Wiggo", you have my vote!
The way I read it is that Sky took the opportunity presented by Wiggo's exercise-induced asthma and a quite-likely genuine medical issue to obtain the strongest possible medication allowed under the TUE rules extant at the time - even Wiggins said it was to 'level the playing field'. The moral question of whether anyone should be able to medically compensate for an illness in order to compete is arguable - and will be into eternity, no doubt.EXACTLY!
However, the fact is what they did was within the rules, declared as happening at the time, and raised no objection from the governing bodies responsible - who had every opportunity to do so had they wished. There was no subterfuge, no attempt to hide what was happening. Therefore, as I see it, there is no reason for Sky or Wiggins to feel under any threat. The rules were subsequently changed, and will no doubt change again. But you can't judge people for actions which were legal and open at the time, but would not now be so.
The way I read it is that Sky took the opportunity presented by Wiggo's exercise-induced asthma and a quite-likely genuine medical issue to obtain the strongest possible medication allowed under the TUE rules extant at the time - even Wiggins said it was to 'level the playing field'. The moral question of whether anyone should be able to medically compensate for an illness in order to compete is arguable - and will be into eternity, no doubt.EXACTLY!
However, the fact is what they did was within the rules, declared as happening at the time, and raised no objection from the governing bodies responsible - who had every opportunity to do so had they wished. There was no subterfuge, no attempt to hide what was happening. Therefore, as I see it, there is no reason for Sky or Wiggins to feel under any threat. The rules were subsequently changed, and will no doubt change again. But you can't judge people for actions which were legal and open at the time, but would not now be so.
I remember reading an article, from donkey's years ago about the US track team, their training, diet, equipment and prep for olympics.
They used helium in their tyres.
During training they stored blood and reinjected their own red blood cells before competition. It was legal at the time, so all above board.
Absolutely banned now. Talked about as if it were on a par with murdering babies.
Should they give their medals back? OFFS
Have sky been gaming the system? Absolutely.
Have riders been riding bikes made to just within the rules aerodymanics? Of course. They would be fools not to. Is that gaming the system? Of course.
Should they be riding penny farthings made from wrought iron instead? Don't be ridiculous.
Stop being children. Wiggo was managed by professionals who will work to the edge of the rules. His injections were declared and in the rules. Nothing was hidden.
[Y'all realise that I just threw the Hand of God in for light relief. Right? :-\ ]
He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
There's more to sport than just not breaking any rules. There's also the way, panache, style, method or manner a win is achieved!
Eg, in the 89 tour, Lemond won by using a piece of equipment that enabled him to rider faster, something that no other rider had, as far as I'm concerned he cheated.
He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
Were you a big Sky/Wiggo fan before? Have you been tearing their posters off the wall? Throwing away signed replica shirts?He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
It's not to me either.
Whatever happened to Sky being whiter than white? Cleaner than everybody else? It's pretty obvious why Sky refused to join the MPCC
He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
It's not to me either.
Whatever happened to Sky being whiter than white? Cleaner than everybody else? It's pretty obvious why Sky refused to join the MPCC
Were you a big Sky/Wiggo fan before? Have you been tearing their posters off the wall? Throwing away signed replica shirts?He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
It's not to me either.
Whatever happened to Sky being whiter than white? Cleaner than everybody else? It's pretty obvious why Sky refused to join the MPCC
Were you a big Sky/Wiggo fan before? Have you been tearing their posters off the wall? Throwing away signed replica shirts?He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
It's not to me either.
Whatever happened to Sky being whiter than white? Cleaner than everybody else? It's pretty obvious why Sky refused to join the MPCC
I've shaved off my sideburns, pissed on them, burned them, then used them as cat litter.
He lied to whom? In a book for his adoring public, ghost-written by some journo or other? That's irrelevant.
Its not to me. I know he wont be losing any sleep over me not believing in him any more but equally I wont be buying anything him, Sky, Froome or UCI or UKADA have to say anymore. He's scratched from my list of cycling heroes.
It's not to me either.
Whatever happened to Sky being whiter than white? Cleaner than everybody else? It's pretty obvious why Sky refused to join the MPCC
They had Sean Yates since the start ...
But I don't understand why. He and his team were within the rules, and used them to their legal advantage.
Nope. The drug, the dose, and the method of administration will have been proposed and agreed by the authorities prior to being approved. Whether or not it was best medical practice is between the UCI and Sky's doctor, and is not something any of us are qualified to judge because we weren't privy to the medical consultations. All of this hand-wringing and backseat driving of Sky is, frankly, emotional bollocks.Agreed.
The TUE was legal and approved prior to administration. Whatever you think of the drugs used, the personalities involved, or the ethics of the rules that applied at the time, it was legal. That is the only relevant metric.
If anything is allowed, as long as the governing body signs off on it (even if it is against their own rules), then brown paper bags full of money become very useful.Again, I'm sure this happens (it happens at FIFA and most other big money sports, so why not cycling, and why not now?).
I've shaved off my sideburns, pissed on them, burned them, then used them as cat litter.Just as long as you don't feed them to the chickens.
It might be interesting to do a full investigation and financial audit of the UCI doctor who signed off Wiggo's TUEs.
Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.
I have seen a ticket for Saturday on sale this morning; no doubt they have read this thread and it has opened their eyes!Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.
So why is he spending this week riding round a sold out London Velodrome with the whole crowd cheering when he takes a lap?
If he thinks his reputation has gone I suspect he would quietly slip out the back door and stick his fingers up to all of us. Instead he's fulfilling a commitment presumably made to the London six day some time ago and is carrying on because as far as he is concerned he's not done anything wrong.
Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.
So why is he spending this week riding round a sold out London Velodrome with the whole crowd cheering when he takes a lap?
If he thinks his reputation has gone I suspect he would quietly slip out the back door and stick his fingers up to all of us. Instead he's fulfilling a commitment presumably made to the London six day some time ago and is carrying on because as far as he is concerned he's not done anything wrong.
Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.
So why is he spending this week riding round a sold out London Velodrome with the whole crowd cheering when he takes a lap?
If he thinks his reputation has gone I suspect he would quietly slip out the back door and stick his fingers up to all of us. Instead he's fulfilling a commitment presumably made to the London six day some time ago and is carrying on because as far as he is concerned he's not done anything wrong.
Most people are blindly flag-waving and have little clue as the back story and the details. How many of the know about the history of Kenacort use in cycling or have even heard of Jorg Jackshe, let alone what he said?
There's a fair chunk of cognitive dissonance going on too.
It's the Lance Armstrong syndrome all over again.
I have seen a ticket for Saturday on sale this morning; no doubt they have read this thread and it has opened their eyes!Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.
So why is he spending this week riding round a sold out London Velodrome with the whole crowd cheering when he takes a lap?
If he thinks his reputation has gone I suspect he would quietly slip out the back door and stick his fingers up to all of us. Instead he's fulfilling a commitment presumably made to the London six day some time ago and is carrying on because as far as he is concerned he's not done anything wrong.
Tho Wiggns did seem to unexpectedly DNS the Abu Dhabi Tour, possibly to avoid the press. One report is here: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-insist-that-wiggins-withdrawal-from-race-is-unexpected/
Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
It might be interesting to do a full investigation and financial audit of the UCI doctor who signed off Wiggo's TUEs.
It might. If you can fund it, and can produce substantive evidence from your investigation, then you have a case. Suspicion and accusation is not a case.
This is not like using illegal methods and drugs to produce an apparently legal result, as was commonly the case with EPO use. Everything about this was declared, open for official examination, and approved at the time. I'm no more impressed by it than Matt is, but I recognise the line between legal and illegal, and that legality - however marginally moral - is the only line that counts.
I'm sure most of us (and all professional athletes) recognise the benefits of caffeine for cycling. In some athletes, the benefits are startling. Perfectly legal - at the moment - and any team not studying and employing the benefits of caffeine are missing a trick and selling themselves short. Yes, there are medical risks with overuse, but how many of us drink too much coffee or tea (not to mention alcohol) and accept the risk? It's legal. It may not be wise, but it's legal. And, in the coffee and alcohol case, we like the effects. So, even with no financial or competitive pressure, we do it anyway.
Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
For you.
I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople. But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.
It might be interesting to do a full investigation and financial audit of the UCI doctor who signed off Wiggo's TUEs.
It might. If you can fund it, and can produce substantive evidence from your investigation, then you have a case. Suspicion and accusation is not a case.
This is not like using illegal methods and drugs to produce an apparently legal result, as was commonly the case with EPO use. Everything about this was declared, open for official examination, and approved at the time. I'm no more impressed by it than Matt is, but I recognise the line between legal and illegal, and that legality - however marginally moral - is the only line that counts.
I'm sure most of us (and all professional athletes) recognise the benefits of caffeine for cycling. In some athletes, the benefits are startling. Perfectly legal - at the moment - and any team not studying and employing the benefits of caffeine are missing a trick and selling themselves short. Yes, there are medical risks with overuse, but how many of us drink too much coffee or tea (not to mention alcohol) and accept the risk? It's legal. It may not be wise, but it's legal. And, in the coffee and alcohol case, we like the effects. So, even with no financial or competitive pressure, we do it anyway.
Wasn't there an issue with Gianni Bugno having an excessive caffeine result? Sometime in the early 90's I think. I remember that at the time my daily coffee consumption would have been very close to his (estimated) "excessive" count (and the pundits didn't believe his figure credible!!)
In this story concerning Sky and BC I note that J Tiernan-Locke has said that Tramadol was freely available at one of the World's. Having taken Tramadol (in some heavy doses as well as lighter ones) I have to admit that I fail to see how it can be a PED. Effective painkiller yes but make you go faster? Never!!! This throws me into serious doubt about the validity of this whole story - too much reading of tea leaves and clutching of straws.
I am thoroughly enjoying Eurosport (France) coverage of the London 6; hope team 1 win but even if not it's all good entertainment.
Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
For you.
I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople. But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.
Yeah. Have you heard....Bradley Wiggins has got really bad asthma.I read that as anathema. ;D
Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
Marginal gains my arse.
Whereas various Paralympians would like to be allowed to compete in the mainstream Olympics or even for the whole ability/disability distinction to be abolished.Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
For you.
I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople. But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.
Not only for me. Also for Wiggins's colleagues.
Marcel Kittel: cyclists with severe asthma should compete in Paralympics
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/marcel-kittel-cyclists-severe-asthma-paralympics?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Do you really think that taking a powerful PED just before his most famous victories deserves only a raised eyebrow and a shrug?.
More so, going straight from standard inhalers to triamcinolone? No attempt controlling it with prednisolone or similar first?.
You mean like Armstrong's TUE?. And why did Wiggins lie about it?Is there a link between Wiggo and Armstrong? IAMFI :)
Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.
For you.
I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople. But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.
You mean like Armstrong's TUE?. And why did Wiggins lie about it?
Do you really think that taking a powerful PED just before his most famous victories deserves only a raised eyebrow and a shrug?.
More so, going straight from standard inhalers to triamcinolone? No attempt controlling it with prednisolone or similar first?.
I, and many others, think Sky are USPS Mk II. What you are saying is exactly what people said about USPS.
There have been several chances for cycli g to clean up its act. Festina...then along came USPS. Puerto and Landis, and along came Sky.
Marginal gains my arse.
<snip><snip>
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
Yes. Rules v ethics.<snip><snip>
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
I think this is the key distinction between the sides of this thread.
<snip><snip>
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
I think this is the key distinction between the sides of this thread.
No, you don't get away with that kind of lazy slander. There was evidence against Armstrong, and eventually it came out. The suspicions about him and his team were strong and well-founded, and the culture of the time allowed non-credible medical statistics to be regarded as not unusual, even though everyone knew how they were achieved. And the methods by which they were achieved were illegal.
What is there about the Wiggins situation that was illegal? Explain.
Here's a quick pub quiz question for you, Tim.
Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
With regards to Wiggins use of a classic PED granted through a TUE, yes...it might have been within the 'rules' but it's pretty clear he abused the rules, and quite possibly was allowed to abuse the rules (as was Armstrong).
It's interesting that you dismiss Wiggins's lies about injections so glibly, as if the 'ghostwriter' quoted a minor inaccuracy and nobody noticed. Yeah right.
Here's a quick pub quiz question for you, Tim.
Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
1. I have no idea. What facts did that person quote to back his opinion?QuoteWith regards to Wiggins use of a classic PED granted through a TUE, yes...it might have been within the 'rules' but it's pretty clear he abused the rules, and quite possibly was allowed to abuse the rules (as was Armstrong).
No, it's not clear. As far as I can see, Wiggins' TUE were explicitly within the rules, and I see no evidence that the rules were abused. I see rules that may have been inadequate. I see differences of expert medical opinion on the validity and effects of the drugs used. I see non-expert speculation on whether such drugs were correctly prescribed. I see an allegation from you that there was/is a corrupt relationship between the UCI and Sky. I see no evidence for that.QuoteIt's interesting that you dismiss Wiggins's lies about injections so glibly, as if the 'ghostwriter' quoted a minor inaccuracy and nobody noticed. Yeah right.
2. Why is it 'interesting'? Are you suggesting that perhaps I'm an undercover operative for the Sky project? Or do you regard Wiggins' book as some kind of commitment to you personally, and one in which any inaccuracies are punished by terminal scepticism?
3. I'm not the one being glib. You are. You are making accusations without any substantive evidence. If you have some, present it. Don't give me questions, or invite me to make circumstantial observations and come to the same conclusions you have. State your case. Or, frankly, be quiet.
Professional sport is not about gentlemen's agreements and moral certitude.
1. Greg Lemond. Heard of him?
Professional sport is not about gentlemen's agreements and moral certitude.
There is a gentlemen's agreement. It's called mpcc but Sky refused to join. If they had been a member Wiggins won't have ridden those races and ex-Sky riders (Barry & Tiernan locke Locke) won't have been given Tramadol (possibly in liquid form in bidons near the end of stages).
Wiggins got a TUE from UCI for serve asthma. If he didn't have serve asthma or got the TUe because he actually wanted the drug for the known performance boost then that was cheating the Tue system.
If the reason(s) for getting the TUE were bullshit then it's cheating. That's the same as riders getting a TUE for a one day classic a few days beforehand for hurty knee, which the Secret Pro article spoke about.
Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
...
Greg Lemond. Heard of him?
beating known doped ascent times
The refusal of Sky to join MPCC fits in with the rumours from the last 5 years that Sky are abusing cortisone.
Is this a bit like where I can claim 300W average power for climbing Cheddar Gorge on Strava, but a power meter says I averaged 220W?
Not really. Even if you can pick individual examples where Froome beat a time set by Armstrong or Pantani or whoever on a particular climb, the overall trend is slower climbing than in the 90s and 00s. You only have to watch clips of the Tour from the 90s and 00s to see the differences very clearly. Froome's best times on most of the major climbs are nowhere near the likes of Pantani or Armstrong or even 'Big' Miguel Indurain.And when froome did an amazing day, he didn't follow it with a day where he rode like a ferret on amphetamines.
None of which proves Froome is clean, of course, but you need to be wary of placing blind faith in the pseudo-scientific witterings of people like Antoine Vayer and Ross Tucker.
Which famous person referred to Team Sky's 'marginal gains' as "bollocks"?
...
Greg Lemond. Heard of him?
LeMond didn't call Sky's training methods bollocks, it's Brailsford's claim to have invented a new approach to training that he called bollocks. As far as LeMond is concerned, Sky are only using the same methods that he was using over 20 years earlier.beating known doped ascent times
Not really. Even if you can pick individual examples where Froome beat a time set by Armstrong or Pantani or whoever on a particular climb, the overall trend is slower climbing than in the 90s and 00s. You only have to watch clips of the Tour from the 90s and 00s to see the differences very clearly. Froome's best times on most of the major climbs are nowhere near the likes of Pantani or Armstrong or even 'Big' Miguel Indurain.
None of which proves Froome is clean, of course, but you need to be wary of placing blind faith in the pseudo-scientific witterings of people like Antoine Vayer and Ross Tucker.
You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.
Froome holds the 3rd all time fastest ascent time up AX3. He beat two of Armstrong's ascents (03/05) but not Armstrong's 01 time.
Funny that isn't it. Nothing to see here. No evidence. Move along....
You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.It's ambiguous, but I'm inclined to agree that Lemond is accusing Sky of doping. The problem here is that he - like Flatus - is assuming that any gains in performance over time must be down to improved undetected doping. I dont think this holds water.
Here is what Lemond said:
"Others make us believe they are ahead of the best scientists, the famous Team Sky marginal gains! What bollocks! There are no new methodologies. That is wrong. In this area too, miracles do not exist."
He is calling the concept of 'marginal gains', bollocks. The key word here is 'gains'. It's an explanation for why Team Sky riders go faster, and it doest involve doping.
You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.
What is marginal gains if not a description of Sky's approach to training? The term is just management jargon anyway, it really doesn't mean anything.
QuoteFroome holds the 3rd all time fastest ascent time up AX3. He beat two of Armstrong's ascents (03/05) but not Armstrong's 01 time.
Funny that isn't it. Nothing to see here. No evidence. Move along....
If it were evidence of anything, what exactly would it be evidence of?
Evidence of better understanding of the effects of training and diet on performance, training at altitude for preparation, sleeping in oxygen enriched environment to aid recovery, use of power meters to gauge progress and performance, including use on the climb, better use of teams to enable star rider gets to bottom of climb with more energy to spare, better equipment including kit that helps marginal gains to give a 'faster' bike. Might even check road surface!
But none of this will convince the keyboard warrior that can slag off someone at will without having any credible evidence. In another thread that attitude would be roundly condemned, but in this thread it appears OK, in the eyes of some, to make accusations that simply amount to 'hear say' with nothing to substantiate the claim. Personally, I think they would be better of following the investigation as to whether or not man did really land on the moon!
(Good posts citoyen, but I don't think your rational argument will have any effect on someone with a closed mind and appears to hold a view that could be described as biased)
And what evidence does Landis have to substantiate his claim?
None whatsoever. But as he is a convicted doper, he is credible!
Based on your stance, all winners in whatever sport must be doping. Sky have not won Giro or Veluta, so others that have won must dope. Cav must dope, Kittel, Mo, Usain, and all those para Olympians as they did beat the competition and set WRs at the same time.
Or do you just think Sky are cheating?
It isn't just a description of training. It's a description of everything.....which is why they blat on about equipment, mattresses, pillows, etc etc.
Of course it's jargon, but it is being used to explain inexplicable performance gains.
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.
What is marginal gains if not a description of Sky's approach to training? The term is just management jargon anyway, it really doesn't mean anything.
It isn't just a description of training. It's a description of everything.....which is why they blat on about equipment, mattresses, pillows, etc etc.
Of course it's jargon, but it is being used to explain inexplicable performance gains.
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
So, you're perfectly ok that they pretended to have a severe medical iisue and prescribed him a drug that he did not need, so that he could gain a significant advantage over his fellow competitors?..because it was 'within the rules'?
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
So, you're perfectly ok that they pretended to have a severe medical iisue and prescribed him a drug that he did not need, so that he could gain a significant advantage over his fellow competitors?..because it was 'within the rules'?
I am. Because the rules are the only criteria against which they may be judged. And they were within the rules.
You have misquoted me, I didn't say that Lemond called Sky's training methods bollocks. I said he called marginal gains bollocks.
What is marginal gains if not a description of Sky's approach to training? The term is just management jargon anyway, it really doesn't mean anything.
It isn't just a description of training. It's a description of everything.....which is why they blat on about equipment, mattresses, pillows, etc etc.
Of course it's jargon, but it is being used to explain inexplicable performance gains.
And this is where we -and an awful lot of intelligent observers - disagree. Actually, the concept of 'marginal gains' applies to all professional sport, and will continue to do so. Changes in training technique, diet and equipment will always and continually enable people to achieve better and better results. That may spook you, but it's a fact that I - a 60 year old man with no history of elite athleticism - can out-perform an elite athlete of 100 years ago while surviving on a diet of beer and burgers, simply because the limited amount of training I do is better focussed than anything they did, and the equipment I ride is from another level of technology to anything they could imagine. Over years and years, that encapsulates marginal gains. But I've occasionally used cough and cold remedies that would have disqualified me from competition, even though they would have made absolutely no difference to the end result. But, hey-ho, I'm probably part of the problem...
This from a team who promised to be whiter than white. A team who said they operate to higher ethical standards than everyone else.
(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
So, you're perfectly ok that they pretended to have a severe medical iisue and prescribed him a drug that he did not need, so that he could gain a significant advantage over his fellow competitors?..because it was 'within the rules'?
I am. Because the rules are the only criteria against which they may be judged. And they were within the rules.
Heh. Pretty darn sure you wouldn't be if it was non-Sky team did the same thing.
Sky are using training techniques that nobody else knows about and team staff and riders have their memories wiped clean when they move to other teams so that they can't take the techniques with them
Sky are using training techniques that nobody else knows about and team staff and riders have their memories wiped clean when they move to other teams so that they can't take the techniques with them
What Sky have that other teams don't have is money. A fuck of a lot of money. They can sign up riders as domestiques who would be leaders on other teams. Wout Poels and Mikel Landa have no business being Froome's lieutenants - they should be GC contenders in their own right.
There could be many reasons why some riders show a dip in performance when they leave Sky and join other teams, and not all of them are suspicious.
There are also plenty of cases of riders who have dipped or failed to improve when joining Sky (eg Nicolas Roche), and others who have improved after leaving Sky (eg Alex Dowsett). As with the climbing times, it's easy to pick and choose examples to support whatever argument you choose. None of it is proof of anything.
I've love to be able to share around some of my pred so others can get a sense of what it'd feel like to be on a Froome "Romandie dose". You really know you are on it. Gawd knows how full on kenalog feels.
Even if you care about pro cycling and follow it more closely than TimC does, it doesn’t follow that you must think Sky are innocent because they’re British or innovative or whatever. I think they’re innocent because there hasn’t been a shred of evidence to the contrary. No other reason.
My support for Sky is really the support of rational thought and the rule of law over innuendo and unhinged ranting. I’m afraid I now read everything Flatus writes in the voice of his avatar.
I've love to be able to share around some of my pred so others can get a sense of what it'd feel like to be on a Froome "Romandie dose". You really know you are on it. Gawd knows how full on kenalog feels.
I've love to be able to share around some of my pred so others can get a sense of what it'd feel like to be on a Froome "Romandie dose". You really know you are on it. Gawd knows how full on kenalog feels.
Yes, I've seen my peak flow jump 50l/min, and taken 2mins out of a 35m commute pb.I've love to be able to share around some of my pred so others can get a sense of what it'd feel like to be on a Froome "Romandie dose". You really know you are on it. Gawd knows how full on kenalog feels.
http://www.stickybottle.com/blogs/medical-opinion-taking-corticosteroids-when-you-have-no-medical-need-to/
This is worth a read.
In 2012 when Wiggins won his Tour, Sky's budget wasn't the largest. There were at least two other teams with larger.
Unfortunately I am NOT perfectly OK with it. Clearly it is a tactic that goes beyond the spirit of the rules - you will probably find rants from me about such things in other sports, especially where my favourite loses! It looks like the rules need improving, and I believe the TUE rules already have been. The MPCC suggestions also look like a good idea.(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)
So, you're perfectly ok that they pretended to have a severe medical iisue and prescribed him a drug that he did not need, so that he could gain a significant advantage over his fellow competitors?..because it was 'within the rules'?
I am. Because the rules are the only criteria against which they may be judged. And they were within the rules.
Heh. Pretty darn sure you wouldn't be if it was non-Sky team did the same thing.
...is a regurgitation of Sky PR mantra.
It takes a leap of faith to believe it is true. I'm scratching my head to think of any seasoned observers who are prepared to make that leap. Even Walsh, who took the King's shilling, is backing out. Kimmage called bollocks on it. Foreign media call bollocks on it. Lemond calls bollocks on it. The British media lapped it up, happy to parade the British heroes beating Johnny Foreigner at their own game without resorting to the dirty tricks employed by swarthy faced Latins.Most of that is anti-jingoistic rubbish. Look at the science and what is going on. Sure there are some laughable things and some not so laughable. Mattresses etc. A very strong control of nutrition (did other teams have their own chef and kitchen truck before Sky set that as a benchmark?)
Shame about the cortisone abuse though. Shame Skys turnaround success coincided with the employment of a doctor who is now banned for being at the centre of a team doping programne. Shame that all the talk about ztp, higher ethical standards, independent investigations, release of data etc turned out to be bollocks.
Of course, there will always be those who have a Pavlovian response to a British flag.
Flatus,
It is far too late to moan about personal slights. Very early in the thread we find this:Of course, there will always be those who have a Pavlovian response to a British flag.
Not that 2 wrongs make a right, but, you know - Just Saying ...
How do you know what Leinders was specifically employed for?
Oh, because Brailsford told you.....after Leinders was revealed as a doping mastermind.
Sorry, David, you are accepting what Brailsford says on face value. That's a shame, as he is at best 'inconsistent' in his recollections of what he knew or didn't know at any given moment.
Brailsford, the master of small details, determined to run a team purer than anyone else, didn't know what his own DS knew about Leinders, nor what was actually already in the public domain. Nor, he claims, did he have any idea that Wiggins choice of steroid was performance enhancing.
It's literally unbelievable.
"Rabid anti-Sky frothing", "unhinged ranting", "slander", "closed mind" "keyboard warrior".....lots of personal attack from people who claim to be neither very interested in Sky, nor subject to the forces of unthinking patriotism.
Employing a known doping doctor (and Leinders was known as a doping doctor before Sky hired him) is a massive fail for a team that investigates all of the angles and wants a squeaky-clean reputation.So what possible explanation is there other than a screw up with Sky? If they were going to dope they'd be far better than that, surely. It seems to be a very silly thing to do for such an amazing criminal mastermind.
Unusual variations in rider performance in the last decade or so reasonably correlates with the movements of various doctors between teams.Again, circumstantial evidence being interpreted to fit a preconceived model. Not saying it doesn't happen, but looking for a higher standard of proof than allegation and rumour.
Yes. I did some of my coaching classes with Heiko when he first went to Oz, straight from East Germany.
But what’s up with his handlebars? Ugly!
Employing a known doping doctor (and Leinders was known as a doping doctor before Sky hired him) is a massive fail for a team that investigates all of the angles and wants a squeaky-clean reputation.So what possible explanation is there other than a screw up with Sky? If they were going to dope they'd be far better than that, surely. It seems to be a very silly thing to do for such an amazing criminal mastermind
It points to the possibility that they knew very well exactly what they were employing, David.
Or it might just have been the fluffy pillows and warm downs...
It points to the possibility that they knew very well exactly what they were employing, David.
Anything could be POSSIBLE but without evidence then EVERYTHING is CONJECTURE!Or it might just have been the fluffy pillows and warm downs...
Or it might be the culmination of the efforts from the support team as a whole, rather like what we saw in BC, or do we assume that folk like Kenny and Hoy were part of the Brailsford doping programme?
Or was is just Sky that were involved and the BC was a separate operation seeing gains by hard work, good support and appropriate professional support?
I'm glad you accept, finally, that anything is possible. You don't seem to have understood that if there was conclusive evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You evidently will ascribe Froome's almost overnight transformation to a sudden response to Sky's training methods. Me? I think it's more likely to be a bit of dope. Seemed to work well enough for other riders.
A few things to think about:
- Even in USPS, there was a core of dopers and other riders that didn't.
- The lanterne rouge at the Tour de France is a one in a million physical specimen. Being designated as team leader won't let that rider achieve a top ten finish, let alone become the best rider in the world.
- Pretty much every previous time there has been a dramatic increase in cyclist performance mid- or late-career, it has later been found to be due to doping. The boring example is Armstrong who went from being a very good but not worldbeating athlete to world-class Classics rider who couldn't climb (while doped) to the best stage race climber and time triallist in the world (with even more dope).
- There have been lots of drug busts in cycling. Each time (for systematic doping), there has been more effort at concealment and less of a paper trail to find. Do you expect it to be easier to find incontrovertible evidence for the next big drug bust?
A few things to think about:
- Even in USPS, there was a core of dopers and other riders that didn't.
...
I see Ian Drake has stepped down. I wonder if a shit:fan collision is imminent?
Or, it might be all totally above board, just some saddle sore cream or hydration sachets from Leinders or something.
::-)
Or, it might be all totally above board, just some saddle sore cream or hydration sachets from Leinders or something.
::-)
Plus the mini pack of Haribo Starmix.
Fluimucil!
Fluimucil!
Gesundheit.
Fluimucil!
So Sutton lied about not knowing the contents?
Nobody ever thought to bring along corroborating evidence?
Fluimucil!
Gesundheit.
Available for €8 in any French pharmacy. Seems a remarkable effort involving several people (Freeman, Sutton, Cope) and two organisations (BC, Team Sky) to ship something internationally that could have been picked up by a soigneur on their daily shopping trip.
http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/58/58_855.pdf
Hmmm.....did I misread this study? Fluimucil can provoke a 9% gain in HCT??
Another marginal gain?
"so what do you reckon about Wiggins being given Kenalog just before an event? It's cheating, right?" Got a flabbergasted "yes, yes, yes!"
I wish I'd followed up with "so when do I get some?" (I'd just spent the consultation resisting his efforts to put a 13th medicine on my prescription, but I have to got back in 6 weeks, so I'll see).
Someone ought to do a delphi study of respiratory consultants with a vignette about a cyclist needing treatment before a race.
Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.
Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.
Riiiight. So everything in the Mail is a lie then. Because its the Mail.
That would include the original 'package' story then, wouldnt it, which was broken by the Mail on information from a Team Sky insider. Brailsford has admitted the story is true, after first failing in attempts to claim that the package was meant for a different rider in a different location (subsequently contradicted by the rider), and then claiming that Wiggins hadnt gone back to the Team bus where the substance was alledgedly administered.....until some pesky youtube footage turned up showing Wiggins had gone back to the bus.
The team insider claimed Wiggins had received an injection. This we know to be impossible because Wiggins said in his post tour win autobiography that hed never had an injection apart from holiday vaccinations. (Until Fancy Bears hack leaked that Wiggins had received injections of PED steroids before 3 major races). Whoops.
For the cleanest and most transparent team in pro cycling they seem to have a real problem with facts.
Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.
Riiiight. So everything in the Mail is a lie then. Because its the Mail.
There is a reason why pretty much everyone is sceptical about Team Sky, even papers and cycling journalists who have previously feted Sky. I get that you aren't seeing it, but I suspect that is more to do with a lack of knowledge and a reluctance to even accept the possibility of that Team Sky's oft-repeated promises to be "transparent" and "whiter than white" might be worthless.
Why do you think there was a Commons comittee investigation?Politicians doing political things?
Perhaps, as a scientist, you should explain to them why they were wasting their time ::-)
Have you noticed that the old UCI folk have been replaced?
Funnily enough, yes. I had noticed there is a new president of the UCI.
Funnily enough its Brian Cookson, former head of British Cycling, and former member of the management Board of Team Sky, who's son works for Team Sky.
I cant begin to imagine how cross he'd be if it turned out that Team Sky won by using PEDs.
Stock Brailsford tactics have been to say what people want to hear, making promises in the full knowledge that if he rides it out it will fall off the front page and nobody will remember to come back and check if he has done what he said he would do.
We've seen this with promises to release all data, carry out investigations, be open to scrutiny and be 'transparent'.
Problem for him now is that he has a parliamentary committee looking into him. Not sure if he'll be able to wheedle himself out of this one. UKAD are already contradicting his claims that they have been given Wiggins's full medical records.
Stock Brailsford tactics have been to say what people want to hear, making promises in the full knowledge that if he rides it out it will fall off the front page and nobody will remember to come back and check if he has done what he said he would do.
We've seen this with promises to release all data, carry out investigations, be open to scrutiny and be 'transparent'.
Problem for him now is that he has a parliamentary committee looking into him. Not sure if he'll be able to wheedle himself out of this one. UKAD are already contradicting his claims that they have been given Wiggins's full medical records.
Just to be clear, the Committee is looking into doping across sport. The performance of UKAD with reference to athletics in front of the Committee set entirely new lows . It emerged that UKAD emailed athletes before big events notifying them that tests would be taking place !
By the way, in other news, Wiggins announced his retirement yesterday.Yes, I had heard! ;)
More to the point, why identify a need for Fluimucil during a race, and then take nearly 5 days to deliver it when it could have been purchased on the spot from a pharmacy?
http://bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38457434Have you perhaps thought about why that might be?
British lawers seem to require every story to end with "...there is no suggestion either he or Team Sky have broken any rules."
Isn't it interesting that Brailsford's assurances that proof of the package's contents would be provided have come to naught?
I find it odd that Wiggins didnt wait until the UKAD and the Parliamentary investigations were concluded, and he was exonerated, before announcing his retirement. It would have avoided the inevitable cloud over his retirement announcement.
The story gets more and more bizarre.....
I find it odd that Wiggins didnt wait until the UKAD and the Parliamentary investigations were concluded, and he was exonerated, before announcing his retirement. It would have avoided the inevitable cloud over his retirement announcement.
Salo Muller, who was Ajax's masseur between 1959 and 1972, admitted as much in his autobiography, published in 2006, and revealed that Hulshoff and Johnny Rep had both come to him with concerns over pills given them by John Rollink, the club doctor. ... 'They ranged from painkillers, muscle relaxants and tranquilising pills to amphetamine capsules.'
The first drugs scandal to hit Dutch sport came at the 1960 Rome Olympics [in swimming] ... Rollink later left the Dutch Cycling Union when doping controls were instituted, and said that Ajax would have refused to comply had doping controls been brought in to Dutch football.
Whilst we are on the subject of the package, the journalist at the centre of the exposé has said that he knows the contents of the package but cannot reveal the contents for legal reasons.
the journalist at the centre of the exposé has said that he knows the contents of the package but cannot reveal the contents for legal reasons. Of course, the implication of this is that it isnt Fluimicil.
My post wasnt reacting to yours, it was an analysis of Veloman's increasingly desperate attempts to avoid the reality of what went on in France in 2012.Ah, fair enough. I hadn't actually seen Veloman's post at that point. I'll stop trying to make sense of it now!
Of course, Veloman's final point is actually wrong. Somebody has spilled the beans, which is why we know about the 'package' delivery to Wiggins at the Dauphiné.
Whilst we are on the subject of the package, the journalist at the centre of the exposé has said that he knows the contents of the package but cannot reveal the contents for legal reasons. Of course, the implication of this is that it isnt Fluimicil. Then again, if we accept as true that Brailsford tried to beg and bribe his way out the the story being released we can reasonably assume that the contents of the package were not an over the counter decongestant.
Here's a David Walsh interview
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Highlights_from_Off_The_Ball/172278/David_Walsh_on_Team_Sky_Brailsford_Froome_Leinders
He still believes in Froome but has big questions regarding Wiggins, Sutton, Sir Dave and Team Sky.
Interestingly at the end he says that doping is about money. Have enough cash and there are ways around drug testing, the implication being that Wiggins' TUE is an example of such behaviour. Whereas in Russia money isn't as preveleant and so there's no way to easily cover up doping.
Here's a David Walsh interview
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Highlights_from_Off_The_Ball/172278/David_Walsh_on_Team_Sky_Brailsford_Froome_Leinders
He still believes in Froome but has big questions regarding Wiggins, Sutton, Sir Dave and Team Sky.
Interestingly at the end he says that doping is about money. Have enough cash and there are ways around drug testing, the implication being that Wiggins' TUE is an example of such behaviour. Whereas in Russia money isn't as preveleant and so there's no way to easily cover up doping.
David Walsh is always interesting to listen to (there was a very good short lecture from him at the end of the TED radio hour on 4 extra at the weekend; just rememebr that he does have a tendancy to make up his mind on things and then look for evidence afterwards). The radio interviewer was awful though.
^^^^^
Are we to assume that BC is tainted with the drug culture, otherwise how do we explain the rise from what you describe as no tradition, champions etc, then the likes of Laura and Jason Kenny are also on the PED treadmill?
Or perhaps they got their rewards by hard work, better facilities with good support and dedication to the sport. Not such an interesting story perhaps, although their book gives an insight to what it takes.
My challenge is that too many cyclists have achieved greatness in terms of medals etc and if that was achieved by PED the story would have been spilled by now as there are too many folk involved.
^^^^^
Are we to assume that BC is tainted with the drug culture, otherwise how do we explain the rise from what you describe as no tradition, champions etc, then the likes of Laura and Jason Kenny are also on the PED treadmill?
Or perhaps they got their rewards by hard work, better facilities with good support and dedication to the sport. Not such an interesting story perhaps, although their book gives an insight to what it takes.
My challenge is that too many cyclists have achieved greatness in terms of medals etc and if that was achieved by PED the story would have been spilled by now as there are too many folk involved.
Jason Kenny is a very interesting case, especially when you look at Gregory Bauge's questions directly to Jason Kenny in the press conference at the london Olympics http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bauge-leads-press-conference-following-sprint-defeat/
... especially since Bauge said "If I understand, you'll relax for the next four years and then when it comes to Rio you'll be on top again, right?" .... "Not at all," replied Kenny. "The Games is the main one for us but for me, I still want to win world championships. They mean a lot for me as a rider. So I'll just go forward."
... and as far as I can understand the Wikipedia summary of Kenny's performances between 2012 and 2016 Bauge's prediction was absolutely correct.
So, I ask how do we explain Jason Kenny's rise from nowhere to win gold in 2012, and then do precious little for another 4 years, only to sweep the board in Rio? I haven't read his book and I wouldn't waste my money on it, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the "rewards by hard work, better facilities with good support and dedication to the sport." only kick in every 4 years.
Mind you, I think everyone, BC, UKAD, let alone Team Sky are trying to dodge the bus!
If you rock up as a newbie and you grandstand about just how clean you are going to be, how you aren't going to employ any ex-dopers be it riders or staff, how you aren't going to let riders on a TUE race, how you are going to produce a clean British TdF winner, you arent just saying something about yourself, you are also by implication saying something about everybody else.
It looks more to me like someone trying categorically to prove that there's no such thing as Santa Claus. And in the meantime killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38573615
Brailsford talking more bollocks
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38573615
Brailsford talking more bollocks
While I must admit I find the whole thing very amusing since the whiter then white thing has always pee'd me off, probably because I'm so cynical, I wouldn't want to see the death of the team since I do think it would be a massive body blow to the sport.
In so as we now know that Wiggins used banned substances to win races, via an abuse of the TUE system, all under the aegis of Brailsford, it begs the question as to whether Brailsford employed similar tactics with all those who have ridden under his management in Team GB.
If the TUE process is abused, it isn't by teams or riders, it could only be by independent qualified reviewers, who by definition have nothing to gain from a decision either way.
Never heard a Gold and Silver at the Olympics to be called 'nowhere'.
Kenny didnt come from nowhere.....but this is beside the point. The thread is about Sky and in particular Wiggins road wins.
Kenny won Gold and Silver in 2008 Olympics (and 7 World and European championship medals prior to 2012 Olympics) so you need to concede that you were mistaken.
And no, Wiggins's TUE and mystery package has no bearing whatsoever on even Froome or his Sky team mates, let alone Team Wiggins or Team GB.
Of course they might have cheated too, but its not a given just because Wiggins did.
Cookie seems to have torn into just about everyone :demon:
The fundamental problem appears to be that Sports Governance in the UK has not moved sufficiently from a model that suited small-time amateur club operations with small National Federation (NF) budgets funded out of modest levies on activities by participants, to that of an organisation responsible for the equitable distribution of millions of pounds of public money each year. Methods of oversight and consequent accountability are not effective.
Policies, rules and regulations are based on the NF, in my case BC, being the ultimate arbiter of everything to do with the sport,
CTT still functions as a National Federation funded out of rider levies, and is not subject to British Cycling... It also practices sexual equality, with mixed fields.
( I nearly bought some, but couldn't stomach the SKy logo on my arse. )
I suspect all the HPV stuff is much the same, but they're even weirder than time-triallists and audaxers.
I suspect all the HPV stuff is much the same, but they're even weirder than time-triallists and audaxers.
Ah good. I was looking for something to do next year.
I suspect all the HPV stuff is much the same, but they're even weirder than time-triallists and audaxers.
Ah good. I was looking for something to do next year.
Unwitting Flumucil courier, Simon Cope, and the Sky doctor at the centre of this 'nothing-to-see-here' controversy have been asked to attend the Parliamentary hearing in late february.
I cant begin to imagine what answers Cope will conjure up to explain why he couriered a medical package of unknown content across international borders.
I wonder if the good doctor will be asked to account for the almost unimaginable coincidence of Wiggins 'pollen allergy' flaring up, so badly as to warrant a PED, at different times of the year, but always before a major multiday tour. Hmmm.
Unwitting Flumucil courier, Simon Cope, and the Sky doctor at the centre of this 'nothing-to-see-here' controversy have been asked to attend the Parliamentary hearing in late february.
I cant begin to imagine what answers Cope will conjure up to explain why he couriered a medical package of unknown content across international borders.
I wonder if the good doctor will be asked to account for the almost unimaginable coincidence of Wiggins 'pollen allergy' flaring up, so badly as to warrant a PED, at different times of the year, but always before a major multiday tour. Hmmm.
I'd like to see the treatment guidelines he was following for its use.
These don't suggest "big race coming up, am a bit sniffy" will cut it.
http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/230935/Triamcinolone%20in%20adults%20Difficult%20Asthma%20Advice%20Note%20June%2013_with_Header.pdf
http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/media/230935/Triamcinolone%20in%20adults%20Difficult%20Asthma%20Advice%20Note%20June%2013_with_Header.pdf
You're right.
But the rules don't reflect this. So they probably weren't cheating. The rules need changing.
... and round we go again ...
You're right.
But the rules don't reflect this. So they probably weren't cheating. The rules need changing.
... and round we go again ...
Define "need".You're right.
But the rules don't reflect this. So they probably weren't cheating. The rules need changing.
... and round we go again ...
If Wiggins didn't need the treatment, then they were cheating.
Doubtless Wiggins's history of repeated hospitalisations due to his 'pollen allergy' will be proof enough that this drug was absolutely necessary.pointless hyperbole! Let us know when you've thought about real sport and the real rules that govern them :thumbsup:
TUE applications need to meet all of the following criteria before a TUE will be granted:
• The rider would experience significant health problems without taking the prohibited substance or method
• The therapeutic use of the substance would not produce enhancement of performance
• There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative
• Use of the prohibited substance or method is not needed because of previous doping.
The following evidence is needed to support a TUE application:
• Medical history
• An accurate diagnosis. For chronic conditions, up-to-date review letters that confirm treatment monitoring should be provided.
• Alternatives have been considered or trialled.
Doubtless Wiggins's history of repeated hospitalisations due to his 'pollen allergy' will be proof enough that this drug was absolutely necessary.pointless hyperbole! Let us know when you've thought about real sport and the real rules that govern them :thumbsup:
Define "need".You're right.
But the rules don't reflect this. So they probably weren't cheating. The rules need changing.
... and round we go again ...
If Wiggins didn't need the treatment, then they were cheating.
Define "need".You're right.
But the rules don't reflect this. So they probably weren't cheating. The rules need changing.
... and round we go again ...
If Wiggins didn't need the treatment, then they were cheating.
As in that he didn't need the treatment in order to function normally. Although he did need it in order to win a TdF.
I recall reading a press report of the doping strategies of the teams in the FA cup, complete with interviews with the coaches, who freely admitted that they had amphetamines to hand, ready to give to players as & when they thought it might aid their performance. Late 1940s, IIRC. Totally legal & within the rules of the game at the time.The way I read it is that Sky took the opportunity presented by Wiggo's exercise-induced asthma and a quite-likely genuine medical issue to obtain the strongest possible medication allowed under the TUE rules extant at the time - even Wiggins said it was to 'level the playing field'. The moral question of whether anyone should be able to medically compensate for an illness in order to compete is arguable - and will be into eternity, no doubt.EXACTLY!
However, the fact is what they did was within the rules, declared as happening at the time, and raised no objection from the governing bodies responsible - who had every opportunity to do so had they wished. There was no subterfuge, no attempt to hide what was happening. Therefore, as I see it, there is no reason for Sky or Wiggins to feel under any threat. The rules were subsequently changed, and will no doubt change again. But you can't judge people for actions which were legal and open at the time, but would not now be so.
I remember reading an article, from donkey's years ago about the US track team, their training, diet, equipment and prep for olympics.
They used helium in their tyres.
During training they stored blood and reinjected their own red blood cells before competition. It was legal at the time, so all above board.
Absolutely banned now. Talked about as if it were on a par with murdering babies.
Should they give their medals back? OFFS
They used helium in their tyres.
Matt, the TUE rules do and did reflect this. It is just that TUEs were getting signed regardless.but Wiggins wasn't signing them (or Brailsford) - unless I missed another exciting tweet?
Isn't everyone asked to sign a declaration when they fly that they know the contents of their luggage?
Freeman, who received the package on behalf of the team in 2011, missed the hearing on Wednesday because of ill health.!!!
Indeed. Chief of UKAD said there were large quantities of triamcinolone bought by BC/SKY but no record of where, when or to whom it had been administered (other than what we know due to the Fancy Bears leak), but it was far more than required for a single cyclist (i.e. Wiggins) and could indicate widespread use by other team members. Without any records who knows!
Triamcinolone is only banned in-competition, isn't it? In which case TUE only required for use during or before a race.
I think we need to reassess Moto Man in the light of Sky: he was probably only going for a nice touring holiday around France, after all.
And where were Freeman's records of drugs administered to Wiggins?
On laptop that waseaten by his dogstolen whilst in Greece in 2014.
Whilst all these shenanigans are regretably expected of 'professional' sport?
Is there any suggested alternative medication in 'the jiffy bag'?
Given that it was administered AFTER a race??
My support for Sky is really the support of rational thought and the rule of law over innuendo and unhinged ranting. I’m afraid I now read everything Flatus writes in the voice of his avatar.
Whilst all these shenanigans are regretably expected of 'professional' sport?Non-performance enhancing alternatives of the sort approved for medical use in the state of Colorado, and which Wiggins is alleged to indulge in during the off-season, on holiday in Spain?
Is there any suggested alternative medication in 'the jiffy bag'?
Given that it was administered AFTER a race??
Fancy that. Of all the things the pharmaceutical company could send by mistake...
It should be enlightening, once the full details emerge of how the blood passport could be evaded with careful dosing of commonplace drugs (probably combined with other measures), just like microdosing of EPO was a revelation to me.Yep. "Top athlete takes PEDs" is almost par for the course. "Top cleaner than clean team on PEDs" is more interesting, but the real interest is in the collusion between athletes and the authorities supposedly keeping them clean.
medicines ordered by both Team Sky and British Cycling were held in the same store room at the National Cycle Centre.It's a bit like "Drugs ordered for the England team (which of course weren't drugs at all) given to Manchester Utd players."
Dont worry, David. It'll all blow over. It is just a conspiracy theory, after all.
Indeed there seems to be specific evidence of an individual pushing the boudaries of the system. And evidence of much of the team aiming to uphold a high ethical standard.
It is entirely plausible that the testosterone package was sent in error. It doesn't appear to have raised any further questions.
DM, that seems a quite limited interpretation of the known facts and the actions of various Sky staff.It's not an overinterpretation, which many seem to prefer.
So far we have several people involved with this package that has the contents supposedly identified by only one person who hasn't been questioned yet. The doctor is being lined up to fall on his sword.
Whilst all these shenanigans are regretably expected of 'professional' sport?
Is there any suggested alternative medication in 'the jiffy bag'?
Given that it was administered AFTER a race??
After one race and before another:
- Testosterone aids recovery;) or other steroid
- EPO or one of the modern versions
- L-Carnitine
- Kenacort
- Human Growth Hormone
...
It would seem very careless to have it sent direct to the team where people would raise questions. If you were doing something ultra vires you would not do it with a paper trail.DM, that seems a quite limited interpretation of the known facts and the actions of various Sky staff.It's not an overinterpretation, which many seem to prefer.
You start to bring a lot of folk into the circle of conspiracy - at least two team doctors, Steve Peters and so on. Freeman is being hung out to dry on this. Brailsford is either complicit or naive in not setting appropriate policies.
It certainly belies the image of a slick and efficient cyborg like management team.
I pushed Wiggo off in a Southport evening 10, and then timed myself in 2007. That was when he was preparing for the Tour, during which he went on a breakaway to show the Cofidis colours, the team pulled out later after a drug bust.
Instead, with its massive, multinational roster (44 riders of ten different nationalities in 2001) they “reigned supreme over one-day races” and “gave a massive return on the 100 million-plus euros we invested over ten years, as an integral part of our corporate globalisation strategy.”
Here, perhaps, Squinzi gets to the crux of what made Mapei truly unique. Other sponsors have also owned their teams, rather than relying on a separate management company as per the current model, but maybe nowhere has that team been such an integral part of the company’s day-to-day business, culture and image.
“Castorama did something similar but only in France – we did it on a worldwide level,” says Squinzi.
“You really felt like the team was another department of the company, or a part of the marketing department,” Tegner adds. “It wasn’t just a case of sticking the company name on the jersey, they used it as a real tool. And in that respect, too, they really influenced a lot of things in cycling today. Team presentations, for example, had always been and are often still just glorified press conferences. Well, [at Mapei] they were these big show business extravaganzas…”
As professional cycling is largely about brand awareness, Sky are doing very well, with five references in your last post, not counting the thread title.
With regard to doping, some would argue that Squinzi himself isn’t immune to a spot of historical revisionism. To brag that Mapei ruled themselves out of major tours by ruling out blood-doping, then boast about riders such as Johan Museeuw’s performances in the classics, is almost as rich as Squinzi. It’s also odd that, having decided three-week tours weren’t a happy hunting ground for riders without the right chemical artillery, he and his team were so committed to winning the 2002 Giro with Stefano Garzelli.
But then Squinzi, of course, remains of the view that his rider’s wasn’t a straightforward case of cheating – although he stops short of dredging up old conspiracy theories centering on Pantani and Garzelli’s old Mercatone Uno team. “I still think someone stitched us up there,” is all Squinzi will say. “There were a lot of strange things, like the fact we heard Stefano was positive even before they’d tested the sample.”
Crespi defended Garzelli at the time but, curiously, nine years later, has a slightly different take on what proved for Squinzi to be the last straw. “I don’t know, I honestly don’t,” he says, before pausing. “Thinking about it now, I just would have expected a more lively reaction from the rider. Okay, when some people take a hit, they can go a little bit numb, but he seemed cold…”
Whatever really went on, Squinzi has no cause to regret his decision. Mapei’s profits have suffered in the worldwide economic crisis that crippled the building industry but the company retains clear global leadership in the chemical adhesive industry, with a turnover of well in excess of a billion euros.
Team Wiggins kit is 50-60% off on the Rapha website.
Brand growth doesn't come from long term fansI read that as "beard growth": What has Wiggo been upto now???
Mutiny is drawing closer: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-team-sky-riders-consider-asking-brailsford-to-resign/
It's a bit of a problem for Sky because a resignation is a tacit acceptance of guilt.
They cant wipe the slate clean because Froome is hiding in plain sight on the slate. He was a key part of Wiggins Tour campaign, not to mention Vuelta etc etc etc. Froome is still a bankable talent, but if Brailsford takes a bullet for the team it won't be long before the finger gets pointed at Froome...not least because his physical transformation (puppy fat to vascular waif with major loss of unused muscle) that occurred after his move from Barlow to Sky bears all the hallmarks of fat and muscle stripping Kenacort usage.
Mutiny is drawing closer: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-team-sky-riders-consider-asking-brailsford-to-resign/
Resign to protect everyone else? After throwing several others under the us first.
Mutiny is drawing closer: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-team-sky-riders-consider-asking-brailsford-to-resign/
Resign to protect everyone else? After throwing several others under the us first.
But not all are wanting him gone (at least in public)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39185863
Or perhaps cycling is easier to expose because there is less money in it? Not just in the sport itself, but much less associated betting and probably less opportunity for result fixing (easy and traditional to fix who wins in the minor post-Tour races, but not who comes third etc).It's a bit of a problem for Sky because a resignation is a tacit acceptance of guilt.
They cant wipe the slate clean because Froome is hiding in plain sight on the slate. He was a key part of Wiggins Tour campaign, not to mention Vuelta etc etc etc. Froome is still a bankable talent, but if Brailsford takes a bullet for the team it won't be long before the finger gets pointed at Froome...not least because his physical transformation (puppy fat to vascular waif with major loss of unused muscle) that occurred after his move from Barlow to Sky bears all the hallmarks of fat and muscle stripping Kenacort usage.
Fingers are already being pointed at Froome. It just feels to be a matter of waiting and watching.
Very good piece this morning in the Irish Independent on Sky, Salazar, Wiggins, Froome and Farah. Hopefully they'll get to tennis, football and rugby next
Strange that they all used similar language in their tweets (I back Dave 100%)
Sky have posted a couple of documents relating to the events around the Dauphine. These are well worth reading.
https://www.teamsky.com/article/team-skys-medical-and-anti-doping-practices
They answer, with readily verifiable facts, the issues surrounding Flumicil. Kenacort is a broader issue and there will surely be questions asked of how Freeman was mixing his BC, Sky, and private practice. He does seem to have been rather keener to go with the TUE than was comfortable for the other medical staff and to have been a bit of an IT dinosaur. GMC will no doubt be investigating and I would expect he will get a chastisement of some sort. (3 years to not upload records - that can't be good practice).
There is an element of reading too much into this. of over interpretation. Kimmage complains that he gets a hostile response from the team when he just tries to be an honest investigative journalist. I wonder if he has looked in the mirror and considered that the reason he gets a bad response and David Walsh has a far better time of it is becasue David Walsh isn't an arse.
"There is a fundamental difference between process failures and wrongdoing," said Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford
Telling the truth is really easy. Sky are finding all of this very difficult.Will that have anything to do with being part of the Murdoch brand...
No, I don't think so. They are struggling because if they tell the truth it's game over.
Of course, the irony is that Sky are being held accountable to their own, much-vaunted, standards.
Meanwhile, here's what Kimmage has to say:
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/03/interview-paul-kimmage-team-skys-charade-exposed/
I think we all (well maybe not all) remember when Astana were kicked out of the MPCC for not following its rules (ignoring Labs Boom's low cortisol levels and rostering him to race)
We probably all ( well maybe not all) wondered why Sky never even joined the MPCC.
Now we know.(well, maybe some of us dont)
And yet MPCC rules would have precluded Wiggins from contesting the 2012 Tour...
No, I don't think so. They are struggling because if they tell the truth it's game over.
Of course, the irony is that Sky are being held accountable to their own, much-vaunted, standards.
Kimmage is bitter and is, in his own words on that interview, stating conjecture as fact based on his 'gut instinct'. ANd feeling a little aggreived when his rather abrasive style gets a poor response.
There is a perfectly clear and verifiable explanation for the flumicil, how it is sourced and used. I don't see how that can be construed as spin.
For some people there is nothing that Sky can do to be seen as clean
Kimmage is bitter and is, in his own words on that interview, stating conjecture as fact based on his 'gut instinct'. ANd feeling a little aggreived when his rather abrasive style gets a poor response.
There is a perfectly clear and verifiable explanation for the flumicil, how it is sourced and used. I don't see how that can be construed as spin. The issue of granting the TUE's is separate and there are now clear policies. Check the timelines for when the team started and when policies were put in place. I don't know of any organisation that starts ground up with all the correct policies in place.
For some people there is nothing that Sky can do to be seen as clean.
For whatever reason, you aren't viewing this with a critical eye, David. Perhaps you feel that you can't countenance the possibility that the Sky 'marginal gains' mantra is just bullshit. Perhaps, you are just playing the contrarian and trying to defend the increasingly indefensible as an intellectual challenge. You certainly aren't trying to ask any key critical questions, and are blithely dismissing or ignoring some hard facts that point to attempts at cover up, blatant lying, and a complete lack of openness and transparency.I would disagree. It is easy to countenance anything you don't like as spin etc. It is easy to take a bunch of observations and draw whatever narrative you want through them, with more or less credibility. It is a mistake to presume that because you consider one narrative to lack credibility that the alternative must be more true.
You are missing some other data points.What is a "data point" ??
Sky hired a doctor that systematically doped riders in Rabobank. Sky team folk had been employed by Rabobank while doping occurred. The Rabobank doctor was fired by Sky only when the Rabobank doping was publicly proven.
Occam's Razor might be usefully applied here.Relevance?
Of course a dirty team, like Astana, would ensure that there was no paper trail.
You are missing some other data points.
Sky hired a doctor that systematically doped riders in Rabobank. Sky team folk had been employed by Rabobank while doping occurred. The Rabobank doctor was fired by Sky only when the Rabobank doping was publicly proven.
Sky had access to appropriate knowledge regarding doping without testing positive.
in a UK court ... Dunno about other jurisdictions.)
5. He was familiar with and used corticosteroids as part of his practice. These can also be used as an anti allergy treatment
So are ex-dopers always guilty in those regs? Interesting.in a UK court ... Dunno about other jurisdictions.)
The standards that Sky are required to adhere to are clearly set out in WADA and UKAD regulations. UK courts don't come into it.
(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)True in most circumstances, but by no means all
But it isn't evidence, it's not a "data point" and it proves nothing.
So are ex-dopers always guilty in those regs? Interesting.
2. Although previous convictions are not allowed to influence the verdict in the UK, they do influence sentencing. Are we there yet?
pointless pedantry unless it applies to the Wiggo case:(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)True in most circumstances, but by no means all
Never has a pot so called a kettle black! ;)pointless pedantry unless it applies to the Wiggo case(another "data point"; in a UK court, past offences cannot be taken into account when assessing innocence/guilt. Dunno about other jurisdictions.)True in most circumstances, but by no means all
Go Sky ! ;D
Team Sky's Geraint Thomas claimed a fine solo victory on stage two of Tirreno-Adriatico (http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/39222526)
A fine win regardless of everything else in this thread.
I've two things to say about Thomas. Firstly, it is unfair that he is being asked questions that should be asked of others. He complained about it yesterday saying that "Freeman and Brad" are getting to "Swan around" when they should be the ones being quizzed. He was supportive of DB but seemed very peeved about Wiggins and Freeman.
Secondly, when I think of Thomas I always think of the number 6. ;)
Yes, I agree with you. I can appreciate all (well, nearly all) wins too but that is because I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief that I have employed forever.
Yes, I agree with you. I can appreciate all (well, nearly all) wins too but that is because I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief that I have employed forever.
Which I assume means that whoever wins you will employ the suspension of disbelief that you have always had and always will have.
The enjoyment appears to be that although someone won, they were just better at concealing something than the other riders or teams in the race. The inherent disbelief would appear to be a significant factor in how you view the sport of competitive professional cycling.
Surely an admission of a 'closed mind'?
So, three assumptions leading to a conclusion.
Nice little strawman you've built there.
OK
Statement of fact from your words: I view it all with the same suspension of disbelief that I have employed forever.
What is not 'closed mind' about this statement?
You are admitting your view, interpretation of results is always viewed with the same suspension of disbelief. Willing to accept the result may be genuine effort?
QuoteSo, three assumptions leading to a conclusion.
Nice little strawman you've built there.
It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years. Sky had a TUE so it seems rules have not been broken but their ethical stance and moral high ground seems to have crumbled into the swamp.
It feels like groundhog day for cycling, we've been here so often in the past. Great wins fuelled by drugs that have no place in sport, the stench of suspicion, endless online debates. Is there less doping or are people getting better at getting away with it.
....but with an unknown like Froome becoming dominant overnight on the back of a story about Bilharzia
It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.
To be fair, that was when he was a 21yo amateur. He turned pro aged 22 in 2007.
I understand the questions that come about from a jump in performances, but there are numerous examples of athletes performing well at very young ages who turned out to be on the juice from the beginning (eg Armstrong, VdB.) So I don't know whether it's more reasonable to see a progression from average pro to top class or to see someone jump in the deep end as top class from the start.
It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.
On the other hand, if you've been following cycling for 40 years or more, you probably do no more than raise an eyebrow.
When did cycling "fans" become a thing?
It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.
On the other hand, if you've been following cycling for 40 years or more, you probably do no more than raise an eyebrow.
When did cycling "fans" become a thing?
Indeed, if you've been around cycles my or athletics for any length of time it's not really a shock. It's just the chutzpah of Sky and the wholesale swallowing of the bullshit by 'performance coaches' in business and other areas of life that makes it so sickening.
Having said that, I understand modafinil is popular in universities and business.
To be clear, the race is still the race, the riders work harder than ever and it's a beautiful and glorious sport. But when one team is so ruthlessly efficient at optimizing their whole group of riders and has Sky's attitude a fall is due.
And finally, if it emerges that Froome really is motorboy, they should be closed down. That's not beautiful suffering or even risk taking, it's just cheating.
To be fair, that was when he was a 21yo amateur. He turned pro aged 22 in 2007.
I understand the questions that come about from a jump in performances, but there are numerous examples of athletes performing well at very young ages who turned out to be on the juice from the beginning (eg Armstrong, VdB.) So I don't know whether it's more reasonable to see a progression from average pro to top class or to see someone jump in the deep end as top class from the start.
Amazing to shit= possible
Amazing to Amazing= possible
Shit to Amazing= ????
Surely if his world-beating talent is 'natural' then he would have had some semblance of it pre-2011. He'd have won all the shit races he entered.
Indeed. As I've mentioned before, it all sounds like somebody with quite a lot to hide who is also in the dark as to how much of it might surface.
I'm curious - do you think there has ever been a clean Tour de France winner? I'm not convinced.
Indeed. As I've mentioned before, it all sounds like somebody with quite a lot to hide who is also in the dark as to how much of it might surface.
When it goes down, quite a lot if not all will surface. There'll be books you know
Not that that exonerates him, but I'm less uneasy about Froome's 2011 than about Wiggins' 2009.
Indeed, if you've been around cycles my or athletics for any length of time it's not really a shock. It's just the chutzpah of Sky and the wholesale swallowing of the bullshit by 'performance coaches' in business and other areas of life that makes it so sickening.
Having said that, I understand modafinil is popular in universities and business.
Interesting statement from the Guardian article:
The team emphasised “we would only ever allow triamcinolone to be provided as a legitimate and justified medical treatment in accordance with anti-doping rules” (http://The team emphasised “we would only ever allow triamcinolone to be provided as a legitimate and justified medical treatment in accordance with anti-doping rules”)
So I assume when it was used it was used legally?
tails online.
But they never accounted for hacking.
Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.
How inconvenient.
Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.
How inconvenient.
Why would you assume that? How many dopers, at the first suggestion that they might have doped, respond with 'you got me dead to rights'? If only it wasn't for those pesky kids...
Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.
How inconvenient.
But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance? Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.Why would you assume that? How many dopers, at the first suggestion that they might have doped, respond with 'you got me dead to rights'? If only it wasn't for those pesky kids...
But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance? Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.
But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance? Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.
But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance? Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.
I would say that it was, as the medical reasons for using it were extremely flimsy at best. Freeman should never had requested it and it should never have been signed off by the UCI doctor. (And they really should look into his financial records).
Edmondson now claims he did tell Team Sky's senior management he had self-injected at the time, but that there was a "cover-up".
"I think that would have meant a bigger admission for them," he said.
"They'd have had to say publicly a kid was injecting. Injecting anything's bad. It's not like they were banned substances but injecting is against the rules - to self-administer anything, I believe."
Team Sky firmly deny the claim. Dr Peters said: "It's not a cover-up. Once you use that word you are saying there was an intent behind us to conceal and that was never the case."
More cracks appear: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39293763
Sky rider starts injecting vitamins illegally and without the team's knowledge. Rider gets caught with the gear but says "I didn't inject". Sky don't report the story to the UCI. Rider leaves Sky.QuoteEdmondson now claims he did tell Team Sky's senior management he had self-injected at the time, but that there was a "cover-up".
"I think that would have meant a bigger admission for them," he said.
"They'd have had to say publicly a kid was injecting. Injecting anything's bad. It's not like they were banned substances but injecting is against the rules - to self-administer anything, I believe."
Team Sky firmly deny the claim. Dr Peters said: "It's not a cover-up. Once you use that word you are saying there was an intent behind us to conceal and that was never the case."
So much for the no-needles policy. And this is Sky who are whiter than white.
What about the line that the team doctor blindly accepted his story that he didn'tinhaleuse the needles? (A story that the rider himself denies.)
Ah hae ma doots.
There does seem to be a 'Sky can do nothing right' attitude with a very rigid right/wrong approach. The real world is messier than that.
A neo-pro feeling under extreme pressure. Dobbed in by team mate. Management take a sympathetic view for the riders mental health and manage him out of the world tour to a more appropriate level. No indication at the time that they had evidence beyond the rider purchasing injection equipment and (legal) drugs. Without hard evidence or the riders admission, there was little anyone could do differently.
If anything it reinforces the status of the team.
What about the line that the team doctor blindly accepted his story that he didn'tinhaleuse the needles? (A story that the rider himself denies.)
Ah hae ma doots.
What about the team doctor seeing someone who feels the pressure so much on stepping up to the team that they feel the need to try to gain every legal advantage? recognises the mental fragility and treats the patient in what they consider to be the most appropriate way? Sure, a team and UCI policy (but not rule) has been allegedly breached, and intent to breach policy was clearly there. Hanging, drawing and quartering might appeal to some, but it is ultimately a matter of ensuring the best outcome for all.
There does seem to be a 'Sky can do nothing right' attitude with a very rigid right/wrong approach. The real world is messier than that.
Sure, a team and UCI policy (but not rule) has been allegedly breached, and intent to breach policy was clearly there. Hanging, drawing and quartering might appeal to some, but it is ultimately a matter of ensuring the best outcome for all.
There does seem to be a 'Sky can do nothing right' attitude with a very rigid right/wrong approach. The real world is messier than that.
You should watch the interview with Edmondson you linked to. He comes across as articulate and thoughtful. He isn't spending the interview repeatedly blaming Sky is he, so your portrayal as him as a vengeful failure isn't borne out at all. His motivation seems to be educating other riders, particularly about Tramadol use. The Tramadol thing sounds infinitely worse than the vitamins. We know from Barry and others that Team Sky dished out Tramadol liberally. We also know that in typical Team Sky fashion when they were exposed they tried to turn it into a PR opportunity by calling for a ban on Tramadol.My bold
I'm sure that the usual apologists will start telling us that Tramadol use was legal, but listen to this young man's words.
They gave him a powerful opioid to help him in races. It's really quite amazing what this clean, ethical team will do.
If you look really closely you'll see I edited my post (before you posted) as I became aware of the factual inaccuracy. You are quite right, Edmundson is saying the Tramadol was not supplied by Sky.
..... We don't need Peters words about Edmundson's mental state as Edmundson is quite open about it.
Team Sky, who sought legal advice on the issue, did not report it to the relevant authorities, a decision Peters still supports.My bolds
“I suppose if I'm looking at safety issues I did think there was a really big risk this lad would be pushed over the edge,” he said. “I stand by my decision. I think I'd definitely have told them if I thought this young man was trying to cheat, but I don't think he was doing that. I think it was a panic reaction.”
He added: "We did it on good faith and decided on two counts. One, we didn't think he'd violated any rules and second and, most important, he was not in a good place."
So Peters didn't believe Edmundson's claim that he hadn't injected, and Peters though Edmundson hadn't violated any rules.
Nice one, Steve.
If you look really closely you'll see I edited my post (before you posted) as I became aware of the factual inaccuracy. You are quite right, Edmundson is saying the Tramadol was not supplied by Sky.
Perhaps not the first time you have jumped to a conclusion and been wrong!
You aren't getting it are you.My bold
Peters says that Edmundson's claim not to have injected "did not ring true". Therefore he did not believe that Edmundson had not injected. He believed he had injected. Therefore he will have believe that Edmundson had violated a rule.
Again, I am tempted to believe the analysis of the professional in this matter, namely Peters, rather than some views floated on YACF.
It is not Peters's place .....Again, I am tempted to believe the analysis of the professional in this matter, namely Peters, rather than some views floated on YACF.I'm mildly amused ..........
Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?
You carry on. But I'm pretty sure Veloman is enjoying himself and so am I. It's hardly personal attack, just a bit of gentle friday night sparring with no insults thrown.
You carry on. But I'm pretty sure Veloman is enjoying himself and so am I. It's hardly personal attack, just a bit of gentle friday night sparring with no insults thrown.
Actually, I disagree as you impugn my reputation and take liberties with assuming I behave in a particular manner regarding my response to authority. You also suggest I have been conditioned to accept authority due to time spent in a particular organisation. A very personal attack and quite unnecessary.
Happy to debate whether Sky are gaming the system without the need to resort to personal attack.
None of the ethical conundrums you have posited involved drugs.
Legality is opinion based too.
Legality is opinion based too.
There does seem to be a 'Sky can do nothing right' attitude with a very rigid right/wrong approach. The real world is messier than that.
Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?
I would like evidence rather than supposition or pointed fingers. Perhaps if Thomas confessed that Sky were a dope fuelled and results obsessed organisation that operated under such secrecy and cunning that no matter who looked through the looking glass they would find no evidence.
Legality is opinion based too.
Agreed. But case law and precedent is a good guide.
I suppose the question is whether sport is more or less interesting if it's entirely ethical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bVGTVrQd6M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say_It_Ain%27t_So,_Joe_(song)
As a cultural phenomenon, it's supposed to be flawed. So carry on.
It's been said before but worth repeating. I wonder if any of the Sky apologists here - those prepared to bend over backwards and contort themselves in knots to give Sky the benefit of the doubt on every new release of damning evidence - would be so generous to a foreign team?[ I'm not sure repeating it has any value, but it's more interesting than just repeatedly posting the same mud, so I'll happily respond:]
It's been said before but worth repeating. I wonder if any of the Sky apologists here - those prepared to bend over backwards and contort themselves in knots to give Sky the benefit of the doubt on every new release of damning evidence - would be so generous to a foreign team?[ I'm not sure repeating it has any value, but it's more interesting than just repeatedly posting the same mud, so I'll happily respond:]
I am in no way convinced that Sky are innocent (legally or ethically) so I cannot speak for these "apologists", whoever they are. If there is bias, or favouritism, causing fans to give Sky some leeway, it is a stretch to call it nationalistic. Sports fans all have loyalty to SOME degree to the team/players that they follow. (there are a few self-proclaimed "neutrals", but in reality I find they always have bias towards someone!)
I've never thought of Sky as being primarily British - they have plenty of foreign riders and doctors. And Geraint is one of my favourites :) They just happen to have employed several Brits that I follow (including Sir Wiggo); so I probably do have a "bias" towards Sky vs other teams, but it's not fanatical. There are several riders who I'd rather see win races/stages than the Sky train.
Legality is opinion based too.
Less so under statute law, and we are talking about the Tour de France mainly.
I'm not sure that the "Sky train" wins that many races these days (compared to the other team "trains" at least).They've won the last two monuments in a row ...
They've won the last two monuments in a row ...
Since when has ethics had anything to do with sport, particularly professional sport? Winning for your sponsors is what counts (which means exposure by whatever means) and anything which isn't clearly against the rules must be not against the rules.IMO you are wrong there for a number of reasons. Perhaps most of all, pro sport doesnt exist without fans, and many fans have some sort of "sporting values" or "ethics" if you prefer. Debate is a major part of the fan experience (which drives viewing and ticket purchases), and if we just discussed the dry facts, there wouldn't be very much debate, punditry, newspaper coverage, books written ... etc ... etc ...
Since when has ethics had anything to do with sport, particularly professional sport? Winning for your sponsors is what counts (which means exposure by whatever means) and anything which isn't clearly against the rules must be not against the rules.IMO you are wrong there for a number of reasons. Perhaps most of all, pro sport doesnt exist without fans, and many fans have some sort of "sporting values" or "ethics" if you prefer. Debate is a major part of the fan experience (which drives viewing and ticket purchases), and if we just discussed the dry facts, there wouldn't be very much debate, punditry, newspaper coverage, books written ... etc ... etc ...
We must be talking at cross-purposes, because that seems to make no sense! :)Since when has ethics had anything to do with sport, particularly professional sport? Winning for your sponsors is what counts (which means exposure by whatever means) and anything which isn't clearly against the rules must be not against the rules.IMO you are wrong there for a number of reasons. Perhaps most of all, pro sport doesnt exist without fans, and many fans have some sort of "sporting values" or "ethics" if you prefer. Debate is a major part of the fan experience (which drives viewing and ticket purchases), and if we just discussed the dry facts, there wouldn't be very much debate, punditry, newspaper coverage, books written ... etc ... etc ...
I am not sure to what extent the fans are actually a driving force in pro road-racing; it's basically free spectacle.
Coming back to an old point, riders who won TdF clean, the only one that springs to my mind is Gino Bartali (for whom everything I have read points in that direction). Two other names who come to mind are Eugène Christophe and Raymond Poulidor, who both never won it. I had a clubmate who raced amateur races in Poulidor's period and his story was that Poulidor was a tight-fisted Limousin peasant who would have if it was free but would never spend his hard-earned cash on dope (this is the sort of son of the earth who is so greatly appreciated in this part of the world, without the reasons being too evident). The same clubmate said that all the pros used to dope in the post-Tour crits just to make sure the amateurs didn't get a sniff of the prizemoney - and I believe him!
What about Anquetil? Pheasant and alcohol aren't controlled substances! :D
in many ways more puritanical now
It could be redolent or symptomatic of a dishonest and unethical team, of the type that lead Wiggins and his doctor to cheat the TUE system
We must be talking at cross-purposes, because that seems to make no sense! :)Since when has ethics had anything to do with sport, particularly professional sport? Winning for your sponsors is what counts (which means exposure by whatever means) and anything which isn't clearly against the rules must be not against the rules.IMO you are wrong there for a number of reasons. Perhaps most of all, pro sport doesnt exist without fans, and many fans have some sort of "sporting values" or "ethics" if you prefer. Debate is a major part of the fan experience (which drives viewing and ticket purchases), and if we just discussed the dry facts, there wouldn't be very much debate, punditry, newspaper coverage, books written ... etc ... etc ...
I am not sure to what extent the fans are actually a driving force in pro road-racing; it's basically free spectacle.
Without fans watching - whether they pay or not - you would not have sponsors. => no wages, no professional cycle-sport.
Sky must join anti-doping group to silence doubters, says president
meant that Wiggins could abuse Kenacort to win his TdF
meant that Wiggins could abuse Kenacort to win his TdF
Which was allowed under the 'rules' by the UCI and their Dr Zorzoli at the time
Well, technically the rules were followed, you disagree wiht the officials interpretation of the rules. The officials and medics who had access to Wiggins medical history chose to interprete the rules differently.
My personal view is that a TUE should exempt from OOC testing and if you need a TUE then you are unfit to race. End of.
My personal view is that a TUE should exempt from OOC testing and if you need a TUE then you are unfit to race. End of.
Generally sympathetic to this point of view, but does that mean you'd not allow diabetics or haemophiliacs to ride professionally? Both groups need in-competition TUEs.
Sky must join anti-doping group to silence doubters, says president
Surely Roger Legeay has his own credibility issues to worry about.
Sky aren't members of the Tufty Club either, which clearly suggests a wanton disregard for the safety of children crossing the road. The callous bastards.
The mere fact of Lampre's resignation from the MPCC, or rather the real reason why they did it, shows you that the MPCC has an impact.
QuoteSky aren't members of the Tufty Club either, which clearly suggests a wanton disregard for the safety of children crossing the road. The callous bastards.
Not quite sure what you point you are making good here.
I find Sky's stated reason for not joining the MPCC to be wholly incredible.
It's clear that a team determined to be cleaner than the rest would have nothing to lose by joining.
That would depend on whether you think that MPCC is some sort of sop to anti-doping.
I think there ought to be some sort of allowance for long term/lifelong conditions. I also think you'd be on very dodgy legal discrimination grounds if you were to take away the livelihood of people based purely on a medical condition they have.My personal view is that a TUE should exempt from OOC testing and if you need a TUE then you are unfit to race. End of.
Generally sympathetic to this point of view, but does that mean you'd not allow diabetics or haemophiliacs to ride professionally? Both groups need in-competition TUEs.
I wouldn't. If you need drugs that can be abused for competitive advantage, then no, you should not be allowed to compete.
I also think you'd be on very dodgy legal discrimination grounds if you were to take away the livelihood of people based purely on a medical condition they have.
Off topic - as a (non competitive) member of BC, does that mean I need a TUE for my thyroxine?
I think the only likely scenario where you would need to apply for a TUE would be if you entered a Gran Fondo such as the Tour of Cambridgeshire in the racing category and expected to be placed high enough to qualify for the amateur World Championships.
This guy took part in no competitions, but got a 4 year ban for taking PEDs:QuoteOff topic - as a (non competitive) member of BC, does that mean I need a TUE for my thyroxine?
The clue is in the words 'non competitive'.
I think the only likely scenario where you would need to apply for a TUE would be if you entered a Gran Fondo such as the Tour of Cambridgeshire in the racing category and expected to be placed high enough to qualify for the amateur World Championships.
Obviously his case is a bit different to taking medically required banned drugs, but it is interesting he got tested out of competition having never entered one...
QuoteQuoteSky aren't members of the Tufty Club either, which clearly suggests a wanton disregard for the safety of children crossing the road. The callous bastards.
Not quite sure what you point you are making good here.
Anyone can set up a club with lofty ideals and then criticise anyone who doesn't want to join the club.
That would depend on whether you think that MPCC is some sort of sop to anti-doping.
Perhaps I'm just a bit jaded - we've seen it all before, eg in 1998 when teams all signed bits of paper promising us that we were entering a new era of clean cycling.
And tbh, I find your faith in the MPCC a little surprising - I would have expected you to be more cynical. But maybe you're right - maybe the need for pragmatism overrides the natural inclination towards cynicism.
He doesn't ride competitive events but he feels the need for PEDs. Why? Does it really make sense to demand professional athletes compete without them when people are using them on (I'm reliably informed by people who've done these events) LEL and PBP?Obviously his case is a bit different to taking medically required banned drugs, but it is interesting he got tested out of competition having never entered one...
The only reason the anti-doping authorities were interested in him was because he was attempting to import controlled substances. And the ban was in fact for refusing to take the test.
Also note that the ban only applies to competitive events - he can still ride sportives, audaxes etc.
He doesn't ride competitive events but he feels the need for PEDs. Why? Does it really make sense to demand professional athletes compete without them when people are using them on (I'm reliably informed by people who've done these events) LEL and PBP?Obviously his case is a bit different to taking medically required banned drugs, but it is interesting he got tested out of competition having never entered one...
The only reason the anti-doping authorities were interested in him was because he was attempting to import controlled substances. And the ban was in fact for refusing to take the test.
Also note that the ban only applies to competitive events - he can still ride sportives, audaxes etc.
So if my club organises a TT and I want to ride for the lolz (as I hear the young people say!) it I need a TUE? I guess I should ask the club person responsible...He doesn't ride competitive events but he feels the need for PEDs. Why? Does it really make sense to demand professional athletes compete without them when people are using them on (I'm reliably informed by people who've done these events) LEL and PBP?Obviously his case is a bit different to taking medically required banned drugs, but it is interesting he got tested out of competition having never entered one...
The only reason the anti-doping authorities were interested in him was because he was attempting to import controlled substances. And the ban was in fact for refusing to take the test.
Also note that the ban only applies to competitive events - he can still ride sportives, audaxes etc.
I presume his name registered because he's a British Cycling member, so holds some kind of licence. I know of amateur TTers who dope, and there were a couple recently caught and banned since CTT started more regular testing.
Had Sky joined the MPCC they would not have been able to do so.
So if my club organises a TT and I want to ride for the lolz (as I hear the young people say!) it I need a TUE? I guess I should ask the club person responsible...
Because PBP and LEL aren't actually races and aren't worth money to riders, sponsors, etc?But how does that make sense and why did it come about in, according to what you said earlier, the mid 1960s? It's as if moving away from the Corinthian or Olympian ideal in one area necessitated a compensatory reinforcement in others.
Yeah, keeping people alive seems a good reason! Unfortunately it seems it doesn't always work. :(
This is an interesting article on how you can use world records in track and field to plot use of/testing for drugs:
https://sportsscientists.com/2016/08/world-records-fossils/
Here's what Wiggins had to say, today, about 'marginal gains':
"I think it’s a load of rubbish, if I'm honest. I do. A lot of people made a lot of money out of it and David Brailsford used it constantly as his calling card. But I always thought it was a load of rubbish"
"It's a bit like the whole chimp thing," Wiggins added in reference to 'The Chimp Paradox', a book by psychiatrist Steve Peters who formerly worked with Team Sky.
;D ;D ;D I think we had a couple of suckers right here on this thread.
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/blazin-saddles-bradley-wiggins-slams-rubbish-marginal-gains_sto6106372/story.shtml
So does Brailsford...
Yeah, keeping people alive seems a good reason! Unfortunately it seems it doesn't always work. :(
There are numerous surveys of track and field athletes that lead to some quite alarming conclusions. In one, something like half or more of those surveyed said they would take a substance that was:
A. Undetectable
B. Would guarantee a (Olympic) gold medal
C. Would (significantly) shorten their life expectancy
I don't think for one second that track and field athletes are any different to those in other sports. Indeed the financial rewards are far greater and the lack of effective testing more obvious outside of athletics.
Another anonymous survey, again reproduced on more than one occasion, suggests that between 25% and 45% of athletes will admit to illegal doping. I suspect there is some reluctance to admit even in an anonymous survey, so these numbers probably understate the prevalence.
It would seem that individuals are making, or having to make, the choices in any case. That does change the nature of sport from one of competition on the field to one of risk acceptance and genetic response to doping approaches. It doesn't necessarily harm the spectacle of course.
PBP allegedly has testing. Never seen it happen, but I have never been far away from the back of the field.
I had to throw away the medicine I'd bought in France the previous year (for a sore throat) and buy something much less effective.
Can anyone find reference to the research Prof Peters has done? I do some work with consultant psychiatrists, and my sense if that it's common not to have evidence for why stuff works. From what little of his stuff that I have read, it's a shame if he hasn't worked closely with colleagues in Sheffield, as they've done some interesting work on emotion regulation, and understand the mechanisms behind it.
All the management and consultancy stuff - makes him look like a glorified lifestyle coach.Still, I am sure he falls asleep on piles of cash, and doesn't care.
I know of amateur TTers who dope, and there were a couple recently caught and banned since CTT started more regular testing.
Here's what Wiggins had to say, today, about 'marginal gains':
"I think it’s a load of rubbish, if I'm honest. I do. A lot of people made a lot of money out of it and David Brailsford used it constantly as his calling card. But I always thought it was a load of rubbish"
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/blazin-saddles-bradley-wiggins-slams-rubbish-marginal-gains_sto6106372/story.shtml
I chatted to a sports psychologist last year who said the chimp theory was nicked from Freud and just presented in a different way.
In the radio documentary that Victoria Pendleton did a couple of years back Wiggins clearly said he didn't work with Peters or go along with his theory. Other riders said he worked wonders with them.
I have always found the articles by Syed to be unbiased to anyone and if anything he is commenting on Wiggins and not Sky. I suppose Walsh and Kimmage, who also publish books and do speaking tours, can also be classed as peddling tosh, as could anyone who has a particular viewpoint or can see how a situation in one area can relate to a situation in an unrelated area.
I suppose the fact that most teams seem to have followed the warm down sessions adopted by Sky is no evidence of marginal gains or indeed the development of cycling apparel that others appear to have followed. Not sure who was the first with those integrated brakes and placing brakes behind the leading edge, but not much evidence of returning to the old days. I suppose the improvements attributed to Lemond's use of aero helmet and tri-bars had no bearing on his time over Fignon and he would have won by 8s even if he had not used the kit. Or was it the rear disc wheel and 650c front wheel without disc? Marginal gains; what a load of tosh!
Sky did not invent warm downs. In fact Sky did not invent anything.
If you want to understand why sports scientists...you know, the people who actually do develop the techniques that result in progress...are so hacked off by Team Sky's crap then have a read of Ross Tucker:
https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/sport/2017-03-27-ross-tucker-bradley-wiggins-team-sky-and-the-science-of-marginal-gains/
Lemond won that TT by 58 seconds. That wasn't a marginal gain. Aero bars, helmets, disc wheels have fuck all to do with 'marginal gains'. Team Sky's crap about mattresses, pillows, bringing in a surgeon to show riders how to wash their hands etc etc is just that...crap.
Triamcinolone.
Enough said.
Do you think the Triamcinolone made a difference?
It seems that is one question you are desperate not to answer...
^^^ They may not be impressed and wish answers to be provided in a similar fashion to the Public Accounts Committee in 2012 discussing matters with Google, Starbucks and Amazon regarding the tax protocols they adopted which were legal, but not necessarily liked. Again, questions asked, but no sanctions as they were doing nothing illegal or outside the boundaries set by the appropriate authority.
Let's stick with the subject - potential doping.
How easy is it to provide cast-iron evidence of doping if there were no records of the drug stocks held or any information about the drugs dispensed were kept by team doctors and other organisation staff? There is no point in talking about positive dope tests. That appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, for discovering high performance doping.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017/03/01/team-sky-british-cycling-left-reeling-questions-answer-bruising/
The chair of the committee stated that the reputation of Team Sky is "in tatters".
Try and spin that one away...
Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?
I would like evidence rather than supposition or pointed fingers. Perhaps if Thomas confessed that Sky were a dope fuelled and results obsessed organisation that operated under such secrecy and cunning that no matter who looked through the looking glass they would find no evidence.
So nothing short of a Sky confession of doping would do it?
And I assume that if Sky, Brailsford, Wiggins or anyone else for that matter have done something against the rules, illegal or outside what is permitted, they would be facing either legal or sporting sanctions. However, while there has been much debate on ethics and morality etc, there appears to be a lack of evidence to support such action. Takes us right back to #13 of this thread.
Sky did not invent warm downs. In fact Sky did not invent anything.
Ah yes, I seem to remember talk of all the teams doing a warm down on the trainers after the stage that was not very obvious to all as I assume it all took place inside the team bus where they hid the trainers to prevent other folk seeing what they were doing. Or perhaps it was Sky that actually did warm downs after each stage on the trainers in full view of the public. Seem to recall some of the TV folk commentating on it when they first did that as it was sufficiently rare that it merited comment.
Comments of Yates in this article by Will Fotheringham , who I realise may be viewed as someone who knows very little about cycling, is interesting regarding the warm-down and post race protocol:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/23/team-sky-tour-de-france-dominance-chris-froome (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/23/team-sky-tour-de-france-dominance-chris-froome)
If you want to understand why sports scientists...you know, the people who actually do develop the techniques that result in progress...are so hacked off by Team Sky's crap then have a read of Ross Tucker:
https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/sport/2017-03-27-ross-tucker-bradley-wiggins-team-sky-and-the-science-of-marginal-gains/
Tucker appears to object to how the tweeks have been reported rather than the process itself as he states “So it was how it was framed — the context more than the concept — that was objectionable.” Seems that Tucker is a little peeved that all the work he and others have done regarding improving performance has not been recognised and Brailsford’s marginal gains mantra has gained considerable attention. Great example of ‘sour grapes’. Marginal gains or sports science, call it what you want, does appear to have some benefit from my observations as I have fine-tuned what I like in my bidon to make the water more palatable and I note this a trend with other folk who ride audax. So I can understand why some of the changes implemented could be considered as marginal, namely that to all intense and purpose no major revolution and a nuancing of the process. Rather like sprinters wearing a skin suit during a sprint stage.
Let's stick with the subject - potential doping.
How easy is it to provide cast-iron evidence of doping if there were no records of the drug stocks held or any information about the drugs dispensed were kept by team doctors and other organisation staff? There is no point in talking about positive dope tests. That appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, for discovering high performance doping.
Potential being the appropriate word. If Sky can avoid being caught then everyone can avoid being caught and we all await for the real story behind the emerging enigma called Sagan. Or we wait for the story behind Cavendish or the story behind Hoy, Kenny, Trott etc etc. But until there is hard evidence then everything is supposition and folk are all tarred with the same brush. On the basis that hard evidence is the exception, I don't think we can rely on opinion without any evidence.
But until there is hard evidence then everything is supposition and folk are all tarred with the same brush. On the basis that hard evidence is the exception, I don't think we can rely on opinion without any evidence.
How much more evidence do you need? There's plenty just in Wiggins' own writings and utterances.
folk are entitled to their opinion.
folk are entitled to their opinion.
Yes, and this is an internet forum, an appropriate arena for the expression and discussion of opinions.
No matter what the folk on YACF think or believe, no matter what others may think such as Kimmage, the fact remains that no evidence has been presented to warrant the relevant authorities to take action or sanctions against either Sky or Wiggins. Folk may believe it stinks like a rotting fish and there are lies stacked atop of lies. All well and good and folk are entitled to their opinion. However, until it is proven that Wiggins and Sky, or indeed UCI, did something illegal regarding what Wiggins took, then everything is just hot air and does not change the records.
If Sky pushed the limits of a system to the absolute boundary, then so be it. If UCI are dishonest or corrupt then every team has the option to exploit them. If folk don't like it then consider what you can do about it other than post on YACF. I can only assume that posting on YACF enables a vent for frustration or anger which might help folk. Alternatively, what was done was legal and while poor protocol and practices have been identified, there is a lack of evidence to support sanctions.
Very easy to make noise about something.
Tell that to the Parliamentary Committee
Even if his opinion is wrong, which it is.
Getting Wiggins to Paris in yellow struck me as an amazing achievement, mainly due to his highly-strung temperament.
Even if his opinion is wrong, which it is.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. ;)
Getting Wiggins to Paris in yellow struck me as an amazing achievement, mainly due to his highly-strung temperament.
Maybe he just rode his bike faster to get away from idiots banging on about chimps and trying to make him drink beetroot juice.
It doesn't matter. As always, veloman and I will enjoy each other's company the next time we meet.
Wiggins was never as bad as Cadel Evans, the temptation to medicate for temperament must be enormous.
No matter what the folk on YACF think ........
Tell that to the Parliamentary Committee
It doesn't matter. As always, veloman and I will enjoy each other's company the next time we meet.
Maybe he just rode his bike faster to get away from idiots banging on about chimps and trying to make him drink beetroot juice.
It's their job to look for evidence, and to assess what they find.Tell that to the Parliamentary Committee
Clearly Veloman doesn't consider them a "relevant authority", nor does he consider that what they are investigating amounts to "evidence".
He is entitled to his opinion.
Ukad investigates claim Team Sky breached ‘no needles’ policy
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/13/ukad-team-sky-breached-no-needles-allegation?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Well, well, well.
The most ethical team has been breaking UCI rules
Oh whoops...
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/fresh-doping-claims-cast-cloud-over-team-sky
Incredible weight loss by Froome and Wiggins, and the ordering of huge and unaccounted for quantities of Cortisone coincides with employment of a doctor who's expertise in his previous team was using cortisone for weight loss.
Umm...errr....w
Oh whoops...
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/fresh-doping-claims-cast-cloud-over-team-sky
Incredible weight loss by Froome and Wiggins, and the ordering of huge and unaccounted for quantities of Cortisone coincides with employment of a doctor who's expertise in his previous team was using cortisone for weight loss.
Umm...errr....w
This could be very interesting if it wasn't obliterated on my phone by advertising for investments un Singapore. Oh well shouldn't believe everything you can('t) read on the internet.
And Dr Freeman resigns, so he doesn't have to face the music.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/oct/19/british-cycling-doctor-jiffy-bag-scandal-richard-freeman
Seriously, a box of testosterone patches delivered "by mistake".
Seriously, a box of testosterone patches delivered "by mistake".
That's the really difficult part, we're talking about something covered by Misuse of Drugs Act / Regulations, control mechanisms are stringent.
If you keep no records it doesn't matter what you order....
I dont think anybody is going to suspect me of doping for my commute. ;D
I just think itharmscorrects the reputation of British sport as a whole, British cyclists and cycling as a sport.
Wiggins, Brailsford and all their lies and bullshit can fuck off.
If he feels so badly treated, why doesn't he just say what was in the bag?
I wonder how much Sky is paying Dr. Freeman for ruining his own career?
Presumably someone high up is protecting him as part of the deal whereby he agreed to be the scapegoat?
Presumably someone high up is protecting him as part of the deal whereby he agreed to be the scapegoat?
British Cycling by all appearances.
A coach for East Germany in the 1980s, Salzwedel has never directly addressed the systematic doping that went on in that country during that period, although this was his third stint at British Cycling, so if that was a concern, it seems odd he kept on being brought back in. Salzwedel told Telegraph Sport last year he could “not help” where he came from. He added: “It is something I am quite proud about that I was never involved in any systematic [doping] situation in any professional teams. I preferred working for federations. There is more regulation.”
Doping? Yes, of course. That was obvious ages ago but there is enough wiggle room left for apologists to give Sky a pass.
Wiggo's Olympic comeback - shades of Armstrong 2.0?
Doping? Yes, of course. That was obvious ages agoSo he's been prosecuted/banned/fined I assume?
Why should they get off for (hypothetically) destroying evidence?Of course they shouldn't! (I assume you mean evidence of hypothetical doping offences?)
The really sad thing about all of this, is not what effect it has on professional racing (disastrous enough), but that if Wiggins, etal are not justly sanctioned, the public will taint the rest of us with the same belief that we all dope for racing or indeed any cycling.I agree
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5101799/Team-Sky-British-Cycling-drug-storm-erupts-again.html
I just caught the end of the BBC thing. SD Brailsford's entire schtick in front of the select committee was "some big boys did it then ran away". Not very convincing.It certainly is not.
He basically says over and over "I don't know for sure, I have to rely on what I've been told by our doctor (and he's lost his laptop with his notes)".
It's such a contrast between the bombastic attitude of "We manage all the tiny little details which aggregate to a noticeable improvement - have you seen our super cool pillows?".
To me, they've always been just another bike team. With a giant pile of cash to throw around. Slipstream are much more credible IMO.
Endurance track riders traditionally are heavier than stage racers because they have extra muscle that let them put out more power but knock them around on long climbs. So why are world class track riders carrying around extra weight that doesn't actually make them faster? Drop significant amounts of weight but maintain power output is quite possible for those of us further down the food chain with excessive fat but by somebody who is at Olympic level? It doesn't add up.
The good thing is that Sutton is gone, a man whose competitive instincts exceed his intelligence, and Dr Freeman who appears to have been seen as initially a safe pair of hands but really was a liability who was amenable to pushing the boundaries. Bear in mind that any TUE is also signed off by UCI so has more than just the team involved.
Many pursuit riders crossed over to become professional road sprinters and domestiques. Only one became a good enough climber to win the Tour.
Endurance track riders do big miles and use road races as part of their training. Many pursuit riders crossed over to become professional road sprinters and domestiques. Only one became a good enough climber to win the Tour. Dropping weight to climb better is common, maintaining the same power output while doing so isn't normal (at Olympic level).
On the documentary, he laughed off bullying accusations by saying he is a 5'6" 60 year old. This, the man in charge of team selection and allocation of resources....Exactly. How could I bully someone, when I have absolute power over their career and income? ::-)
I hope they only allow this "Fast Track" system for very important races, and very important riders.
Get rid of TUE's completely. if you're not fit on race day, tough titties! Still race or drop out altogether!It makes life simpler, but it's not something that you can get through WADA.
Get rid of TUE's completely. if you're not fit on race day, tough titties! Still race or drop out altogether!It makes life simpler, but it's not something that you can get through WADA.
Are they OK out of competition?
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
It missed out on BC's neglect of the Women's team in that period. The use of Nicole Cook winning in Bejing was unintentionally ironic.
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
It missed out on BC's neglect of the Women's team in that period. The use of Nicole Cook winning in Bejing was unintentionally ironic.
It annoyed me when they said it all started with the team sprint in Beijing, NC was the first gold medal there.
I know, I'm easily annoyed when it comes to british cycling.
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
If they require drugs that are considered performing enhancing, then they shouldn't compete.
For out of competition, there needs to be a substantial period between the drug and the competition (months).
Get rid of TUE's completely. if you're not fit on race day, tough titties! Still race or drop out altogether!It makes life simpler, but it's not something that you can get through WADA.
Are they OK out of competition?
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
If you need medication, retire from said race or races and get treated under WADA. TUEs are just simply removed from WT and one day races. Aren’t people who have lifelong treatments already banned from competing professionally. Their system would never be clean enough.
Get rid of TUE's completely. if you're not fit on race day, tough titties! Still race or drop out altogether!It makes life simpler, but it's not something that you can get through WADA.
Are they OK out of competition?
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
If you need medication, retire from said race or races and get treated under WADA. TUEs are just simply removed from WT and one day races. Aren’t people who have lifelong treatments already banned from competing professionally. Their system would never be clean enough.
TUEs are part of the WADA code.
And people who require lifelong medication aren't banned automatically. There is a team of diabetcis in the pro peleton: https://www.teamnovonordisk.com/
My entire family requires thyroid medication because the gland is rubbish - does that mean we just can't compete?
Get rid of TUE's completely. if you're not fit on race day, tough titties! Still race or drop out altogether!It makes life simpler, but it's not something that you can get through WADA.
Are they OK out of competition?
What about people who require medication for lifelong conditions?
If you need medication, retire from said race or races and get treated under WADA. TUEs are just simply removed from WT and one day races. Aren’t people who have lifelong treatments already banned from competing professionally. Their system would never be clean enough.
TUEs are part of the WADA code.
And people who require lifelong medication aren't banned automatically. There is a team of diabetcis in the pro peleton: https://www.teamnovonordisk.com/
My entire family requires thyroid medication because the gland is rubbish - does that mean we just can't compete?
Thyroid is particularly awkward, because misuse of the synthetic hormone can cause the problems that mean you need synthetic hormone for the rest of your life. So you can literally take a healthy person, feed them medicine until their body breaks, and then they require the medicine forever. That's messed up. But, if you are a pro athlete, and then your doctor says you have a legit medical condition that's easily managed, but that you're not allowed to take the medication for because then you lose your livelihood, that's messed up too. Imagine the conversation - "you've got thyroid cancer. The good news is that it's localised and easily solved, you will be perfectly healthy in 6 months. The bad news is that you can't race ever again because your medication is on the banned list."
I was diagnosed with Graves disease at 28 (with a resting HR of 122!). My daughter has just been diagnosed aged 8, which makes her the 5th generation that we know of to have had thyroid issues.
PS if it were to be banned, then it's not just I can't ride with WT, but I can't get a Cat 4 BC license (or ride local TTs?).
Thyroid is particularly awkward, because misuse of the synthetic hormone can cause the problems that mean you need synthetic hormone for the rest of your life. So you can literally take a healthy person, feed them medicine until their body breaks, and then they require the medicine forever. That's messed up. But, if you are a pro athlete, and then your doctor says you have a legit medical condition that's easily managed, but that you're not allowed to take the medication for because then you lose your livelihood, that's messed up too. Imagine the conversation - "you've got thyroid cancer. The good news is that it's localised and easily solved, you will be perfectly healthy in 6 months. The bad news is that you can't race ever again because your medication is on the banned list."
I was diagnosed with Graves disease at 28 (with a resting HR of 122!). My daughter has just been diagnosed aged 8, which makes her the 5th generation that we know of to have had thyroid issues.
PS if it were to be banned, then it's not just I can't ride with WT, but I can't get a Cat 4 BC license (or ride local TTs?).
If it were banned you'd need a TUE to ride Cat 4 and TT's.
Hence why I find this less black and white than most. I can't stop taking my thyroxine for a few weeks so I can ride TTs! :) And it would suck if my daughter is never allowed to play competitive sport.Thyroid is particularly awkward, because misuse of the synthetic hormone can cause the problems that mean you need synthetic hormone for the rest of your life. So you can literally take a healthy person, feed them medicine until their body breaks, and then they require the medicine forever. That's messed up. But, if you are a pro athlete, and then your doctor says you have a legit medical condition that's easily managed, but that you're not allowed to take the medication for because then you lose your livelihood, that's messed up too. Imagine the conversation - "you've got thyroid cancer. The good news is that it's localised and easily solved, you will be perfectly healthy in 6 months. The bad news is that you can't race ever again because your medication is on the banned list."
I was diagnosed with Graves disease at 28 (with a resting HR of 122!). My daughter has just been diagnosed aged 8, which makes her the 5th generation that we know of to have had thyroid issues.
PS if it were to be banned, then it's not just I can't ride with WT, but I can't get a Cat 4 BC license (or ride local TTs?).
If it were banned you'd need a TUE to ride Cat 4 and TT's.
And therefore would be viewed with suspicion along with Wiggins etc!
If your medical treatment isn't performance enhancing, go ahead, take it and race. If your treatment is performance enhancing when taken in excessive quantities or by a healthy athlete, then you don't get to race at anyFixed :). BC cat 4, local club TT or cross race are subject to the same rules.significantlevel.
There are heaps of reasons why somebody might not be able to take part in their preferred pastime of low-level racing. Performance enhancing medication being necessary for their health is just another reason.
DuncanM, I'm sure we all understand that there are people such as yourself and your daughter who have genuine long-term conditions that require medication, and those people are who the TUE system is designed for - eg Alex Dowsett has a needle exemption because of his haemophilia and AIUI requires hormone therapy to prevent potentially fatal bleeding in a crash.
But that's not what's being discussed here. Dowsett is not the one under suspicion.
I believe the rules for the pros should be 'No TUE' ever. If the required medical treatment is performance enhancing, they don't race at all. Low level racing may well allow TUEs as currently. You will still get folk (pros or otherwise) trying to dope, even with no money at stake.You want to ban all haemophiliacs from pro cycling (or, if this is at the Wada level, all pro sport)? Should thyroxine be decided to be performance enhancing, you would just ban all hypothyroid people from pro sport? And if WADA decide that other medical products that individuals need are actually performance enhancing then you would happily ban them too.
Because it stops the edge cases (e.g. Wiggo's TUEs) that has brought us to this point in the thread.Wiggo's "edge cases" wouldn't be legal under the current TUE rules. You need independent doctors to sign it off now. Whether you trust the UCI to actually apply the rules is another question entirely...
You want to ban all haemophiliacs from pro cycling (or, if this is at the Wada level, all pro sport)? Should thyroxine be decided to be performance enhancing, you would just ban all hypothyroid people from pro sport? And if WADA decide that other medical products that individuals need are actually performance enhancing then you would happily ban them too.
After banning all those people who have done nothing wrong, you agree it won't stop the professionals from doping. What's the point?
It missed out on BC's neglect of the Women's team in that period. The use of Nicole Cook winning in Bejing was unintentionally ironic.
It annoyed me when they said it all started with the team sprint in Beijing, NC was the first gold medal there.
I know, I'm easily annoyed when it comes to british cycling.
I don't agree with the presence of top-flight professionals in the Olympics. I might be persuaded that there's a place for espoirs, as in soccer. The presence of pros in the Commonwealth games is even worse. All it's done is to muddy the ethical waters.
Thyroxine is currently not on the banned list despite USADA and UKAD fighting for it to be banned: http://roidvisor.com/wada-to-athletes-go-ahead-use-t3-thyroid-drugs-to-enhance-your-performance/You want to ban all haemophiliacs from pro cycling (or, if this is at the Wada level, all pro sport)? Should thyroxine be decided to be performance enhancing, you would just ban all hypothyroid people from pro sport? And if WADA decide that other medical products that individuals need are actually performance enhancing then you would happily ban them too.
After banning all those people who have done nothing wrong, you agree it won't stop the professionals from doping. What's the point?
FWIW,
The treatment for haemophilia is either clotting factor VIII or clotting factor IX depending on type or disease, neither of which are, or ever will be, remotely performance enhancing - they do need to be given intravenously.
Thyroxine is not currently on the WADA list of performance enhancing substances.
Both need to be prescribed by a doctor but neither need TUEs.
What is potentially more concerning is the rumoured use of thyroid medication. It hasn’t gotten much press but there’s lots of chatter about it. It’s a hormone that is not even on the watched list, it basically speeds up thyroid function massively making your metabolism go through the roof allowing guys to drop massive amounts of weight.
These days, body weight is where guys are getting the sketchiest gains. Or losses, I guess. Guys that used to be rouleurs are dropping 10kg and taking on the lightweights. If they’re doing it with thyroid meds, it’s something that will haunt these guys for life because taking it unnecessarily (some guys do actually have genuine hypothyroidism) will give you hypothyroidism. Stop taking it and you will become very fat very quickly. There is a large problem in America with teenage girls taking it as a way to keep weight off.
Racing grand tours and training like maniacs can already slow thyroid function; it’s one of the reasons we self-destruct. If they are to ban the use of thyroid medication they will have to work out a way to decipher between those who have a genuine thyroid problem or those who have given themselves one from living in the grey area. It has echoes of the cortisone issue, in that it can be used legitimately but prevalence among us elite athletes seems awfully high.
It missed out on BC's neglect of the Women's team in that period. The use of Nicole Cook winning in Bejing was unintentionally ironic.
It annoyed me when they said it all started with the team sprint in Beijing, NC was the first gold medal there.
I know, I'm easily annoyed when it comes to british cycling.
I don't agree with the presence of top-flight professionals in the Olympics. I might be persuaded that there's a place for espoirs, as in soccer. The presence of pros in the Commonwealth games is even worse. All it's done is to muddy the ethical waters.
I know this is a completely different issue, but the lines between professionals and amateurs are now so blurred that I don't see how that could be enforced. You would have to ban all sponsorship of any sort.
Because it stops the edge cases (e.g. Wiggo's TUEs) that has brought us to this point in the thread.Wiggo's "edge cases" wouldn't be legal under the current TUE rules. You need independent doctors to sign it off now. Whether you trust the UCI to actually apply the rules is another question entirely...
You want to ban all haemophiliacs from pro cycling (or, if this is at the Wada level, all pro sport)? Should thyroxine be decided to be performance enhancing, you would just ban all hypothyroid people from pro sport? And if WADA decide that other medical products that individuals need are actually performance enhancing then you would happily ban them too.
After banning all those people who have done nothing wrong, you agree it won't stop the professionals from doping. What's the point?
FWIW,
The treatment for haemophilia is either clotting factor VIII or clotting factor IX depending on type or disease, neither of which are, or ever will be, remotely performance enhancing - they do need to be given intravenously. (Hence need for an "allow needles" exemption)
Thyroxine is not currently on the WADA list of performance enhancing substances.
Both need to be prescribed by a doctor but neither need TUEs.
Dowsett - who has special dispensation to inject himself every 48 hours with an engineered version of the clotting protein Factor VIII as his body doesn't naturally produce it.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/get-inspired/32434988
. The injection must be reported immediately and in writing not later than 24It's all on page 21 of this document:
hours afterwards to the UCI Doctor (via email [medical@uci.ch] or fax [+41 24
468 59 48]), except for riders
a. With a valid TUE;
b. Vaccination
c. When the injection is received during hospital treatment or clinical
examination;
d. When normal practice is that the patient with a disease requiring injections
injects him/herself.
Just think how fast he could go if he wasn't ill enough to need treatment.
Just think how fast he could go if he wasn't ill enough to need treatment.
The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.
How much salbutamol do you need to take to get above 1000 ng/ml? Is it a case that you are allowed 4 puffs a day, but if you take 6 then you go over the limit?
How much salbutamol do you need to take to get above 1000 ng/ml? Is it a case that you are allowed 4 puffs a day, but if you take 6 then you go over the limit?
How much salbutamol do you need to take to get above 1000 ng/ml? Is it a case that you are allowed 4 puffs a day, but if you take 6 then you go over the limit?
I heard on the radio this morning that it's around 16 puffs on an inhaler per day. I don't know how accurate that is but it's a lot of puffs. Even when she's having a bad attack, my wife never takes that much. If it got so bad as to need that many puffs in one day, she'd be in hospital, not racing her bike up Spanish mountains.
Clearly it is going to vary between individuals, but when you've got double the legal limit in your blood, it's hard to explain that away as being a quirk of your metabolism.
Not sure if the rules have changed since Petachi's ban but it leave's a fair bit of wiggle room, on the other hand if its still rumbling on does it mean that the pharmacokinetic tests didn't support Froome's case ?
Not sure if the rules have changed since Petachi's ban but it leave's a fair bit of wiggle room, on the other hand if its still rumbling on does it mean that the pharmacokinetic tests didn't support Froome's case ?
It's unclear from the wording of WADA's statement whether any such tests have been conducted yet. Is it not merely a statement of the results of the initial urine test, as confirmed by the B sample?
Besides, its all going to be ok. Brailsford has said that the metabolism thing is far too complicated for us to understand, and Team Sky will look into it all and explain it to us later.
Nibali, who has asthma too, states (http://m.tuttobiciweb.it/index.php?page=news&cod=107398): it was raining those days. There were no pollen in the air bothering me. I did not need any Ventolin.There was a certain amount of "I've been misquoted" coming from Nibali now. ;)
Which is why these leaks and for that matter total transparency by the various governing bodies are harmful.
Trial by media or mob is the new normal. No one cares about facts or process or wrongdoing or experts, just gut instinct
I suppose this must have been an error by Sky or Froome, unless the high urine concentration was caused by his metabolism and circumstances despite a dose below the allowed threshold – in which case he’s flatly innocent of all wrong technical and otherwise, not that the baying crowd will ever accept that. But since Froome has known about this for nearly three months, you’d expect him and Sky to already have proven to their satisfaction how he responds to salbutamol. Then again, maybe they have done that and we’re yet to know – the leak has forced a premature statement (https://www.teamsky.com/article/ts-statement) but there’s surely more to come.
2000 ng/ml is a nice round number, isn’t it? Not Petacchi’s 1320 ng/ml. Easy to remember.
Pity. I quite like the role he carved out as the sport's ambassador. A nice chap, articulate and fair minded. But now tainted, regardless of the eventual outcome based on technical and process arguments from his legal team and expert.
Bollocks
Pity. I quite like the role he carved out as the sport's ambassador. A nice chap, articulate and fair minded. But now tainted, regardless of the eventual outcome based on technical and process arguments from his legal team and expert.
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top.
Bollocks
All of it?
I’d forgotten this thread was you doing this. I can’t be bothered with that attitude or style of discourse, so learn some manners or you’ll be talking to yourself some more.
Although 2000 ng/ml sounds greatly higher than the presumably already high allowable urine concentration, there’s still a possibility for Froome to show that his urine legitimately had that concentration of salbutamol, which is why this AAF should not be in the public domain. If he can’t, people won’t make much of a distinction between salbutamol, even a mistakenly high dose of salbutamol, and EPO. We’re at that level of inanity, unfortunately.
It’s interesting to consider whether the new media-induced terror of applying for a TUE provoked this AAF, since he’d have been allowed any sane dose of salbutamol with a TUE.
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top. Essentially the rules are constantly changing. Perhaps salvation lies in amateur sport, but if so, what a shame that we cannot have nice things.
This is interesting:
https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/
Somewhere, someone has fscked up. The most charitable answer, that it's just too many inhaler puffs, means Froome + the doctor screwed up horribly. Unless they can demonstrate in a lab setting that a permitted dose causes this urine concentration, he should be banned. The innr ring article shows a graph which demonstrates this as a possibility. The worst possible screw up is that it was as a result of some other doping (see the jorg jacshe tweet about the blood bag residue). If that's the case, I doubt we'll ever find out.
Old school cycling has numbers stories of being caught because the cheating was messed up. Who was it who produced a urine sample that proved he was pregnant? Or got one from the mechanic, who was doped up to the eyeballs to drive across europe all night? That was back when it was assumed everyone was doped though, and being caught didn't have such consequences...
All the top riders seem to be asthmatic. I read a study somewhere that the quantity of training required to be a top cyclist created the conditions that cause asthma, but I'm not in a position to be able to verify that. I know that Indurain was one who used it.Do you have any hyperlinks to this study? My interest is piqued.
As a disinterested observer the amount of drugs taken by athletes to counter various ailments appears to me to be higher than in the general population. Surely they can't all be asthmatic?A quick google finds this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eidAll the top riders seem to be asthmatic. I read a study somewhere that the quantity of training required to be a top cyclist created the conditions that cause asthma, but I'm not in a position to be able to verify that. I know that Indurain was one who used it.Do you have any hyperlinks to this study? My interest is piqued.
My personal guess? Froome has done a blood bag the evening after a really difficult day and a big time loss. The salbutamol is in there. It has been used as a masking agent for something else.If it's in the blood bag, my guess is that the blood was taken at a time when there was a lot of pollen about and he had used salbutamol as normal (or indeed in pill form). There are a number of articles around saying that it's a rubbish masking agent, so I find it unlikely they were making a blood bag and used it as a mask for other stuff they thought would be in the bag...
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top.
I thought it was drug cheating that was ruining the sport, not leaks to the press.
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top.
I thought it was drug cheating that was ruining the sport, not leaks to the press.
Or maybe the overzealous rules limiting the amount of permitted doping?
I’m afraid when I watched Froome gain back time after a bad day in the Vuelta I was thinking “Morzine”.
That's a very strange interpretation of the situation. The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?I'm not convinced that the bold statement is completely true. For (pertinent) example, there are apparently at least as many studies showing that Salbutamol has little effect beyond helping asthma affected athletes perform as they can without the asthma.
That's a very strange interpretation of the situation. The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?I'm not convinced that the bold statement is completely true. For (pertinent) example, there are apparently at least as many studies showing that Salbutamol has little effect beyond helping asthma affected athletes perform as they can without the asthma.
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top.
I thought it was drug cheating that was ruining the sport, not leaks to the press.
Or maybe the overzealous rules limiting the amount of permitted doping?
That's a very strange interpretation of the situation. The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?
I wonder what Mr Bwiggins thinks about all this?
I didn't listen to Radio 4 - was reading some blog on it (maybe the Innr Ring one?).That's a very strange interpretation of the situation. The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?I'm not convinced that the bold statement is completely true. For (pertinent) example, there are apparently at least as many studies showing that Salbutamol has little effect beyond helping asthma affected athletes perform as they can without the asthma.
According to the bloke on Radio4 just now (who in the past advised Team Sky and Froome on how to establish that he was asthmatic) ::-)
I'm not convinced that the bold statement is completely true. For (pertinent) example, there are apparently at least as many studies showing that Salbutamol has little effect beyond helping asthma affected athletes perform as they can without the asthma.
Pity. I quite like the role he carved out as the sport's ambassador. A nice chap, articulate and fair minded. But now tainted, regardless of the eventual outcome based on technical and process arguments from his legal team and expert.An ambassador? Really??
Who wouldn't prefer him to be clean? (well...maybe Nibali ;D)
There is a reason why he has always been shrouded with suspicion...
Too bad. I would have preferred Froome to be clean.
I wonder what Mr Bwiggins thinks about all this?
Glad to be out of the spotlight?
This is from another forum:
"There is a plateau effect for inhaled salbutamol and it does little if you don't have asthma, exercise-induced or otherwise.
Oral salbutamol, on the other hand, does have performance enhancing effects outside of pure bronchodilation. That's where the studies showing increased sprint power, anabolic effects, improved recovery time, improved energy generation etc come from. There's also data showing acute dosing (single dosing) is better than chronic dosing (1-3 weeks).
Oral salbutamol is a banned substance, inhaled doesn't need a TUE. The dose ceiling set for a positive test is based on what the majority of people sticking to the maximum prescribed inhaled dose are unlikely to go above. If you take it orally, you are much more likely to go over the dose ceiling. If your asthma is bad enough that we (speaking as a chest physician) consider oral salbutamol, you shouldn't be competing in stage races from a medical safety perspective.
Given Froome's never tested positive before and other people who have couldn't reproduce that result under controlled attempts to clear their name, there's a reasonable chance he was doping with oral salbutamol."
Too bad. I would have preferred Froome to be clean.
Too bad. I would have preferred Froome to be clean.
To me it was obvious he is doping ever since that 2nd place in the Vuelta, almost as obvious as Armstrong after his first Tour win.
.. Team Sky will look into it all andexplain it to us latertell us it's all OK.
In other words, he would be taking something that was not performance-enhancing, that was certain to be discovered and that he had repeatedly informed the authorities about in any case. It would be deception as idiocy, duplicity by the guileless.
That is a good article. It sticks to the facts and doesn't hypothesise about the unknowns. What makes it good could also be seen as avoiding the issue to a certain extent - it doesn't try to fill in the gaps at all, some of the other articles have tried to include more context and nuance...
Pity. I quite like the role he carved out as the sport's ambassador. A nice chap, articulate and fair minded. But now tainted, regardless of the eventual outcome based on technical and process arguments from his legal team and expert.An ambassador? Really??
I find him terribly dull. Every interview same tone of voice, same eyebrow moves, same sanitised PR-speak. Always seems to want to keep his head down, stay away from any controversy (let alone any teammates with doping connections), no real opinion on anything. A deeply uninteresting succesor to Wiggins.
Just MHO of course!
The inhaled form is literally kids' stuff, the entry-level asthma medication routinely prescribed by GPs. It is a performance enabler rather than a performance enhancer. It relieves constriction in the airways but does not make them bigger.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42350159
Repeated studies have shown negligible benefit to athletes without asthma. It does not give you some sort of super-lungs nor allow you to take in more oxygen than otherwise.
Which is not easy considering you can't take a bottle from a team car in the last 20km, you get given perhaps one, two if you are lucky upon crossing the line where you are surrounded by team and then press. Following a brief sit down to contemplate your achievements you are frog marched onto the podium for a jersey presentation, you then give your sample, you then do endless interviews and finally get proper food a drink perhaps an hour after crossing the line.
On a hot day in August at the top of a mountain I would think most of the peloton were somewhat dehydrated
Re. Salbutamol.QuoteThe inhaled form is literally kids' stuff, the entry-level asthma medication routinely prescribed by GPs. It is a performance enabler rather than a performance enhancer. It relieves constriction in the airways but does not make them bigger.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42350159
Repeated studies have shown negligible benefit to athletes without asthma. It does not give you some sort of super-lungs nor allow you to take in more oxygen than otherwise.
There seems to be a sense in which a limit for a legal therapeutic agent is kind of arbitrary, given any advantage seems to be minimal, and also with variations in an individual's physiology/metabolism compared to others...
The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?
.The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?
Currently we have sportspeople being dragged over the coals for taking legal or inconsequential substances. There is near-zero “public confidence” in cycling despite these actions.
The era of massive oxygen-vector doping is over. That distorted sport as we understand it and was worth fighting with extreme measures. But now society holds cyclists to impossible moral standards (see the Wiggins case) with consequences arguably more harmful than residual doping.
In the present case, the public should simply not know about Froome’s AAF, since people equate an AAF with doping (not to mention salbutamol with EPO). For these reasons and others, the UCI is not allowed to tell us about an AAF unless the athlete consents. Leaks like this one ruin careers and the sport’s reputation. And for what? To sell a week’s worth of fake news. Not cool.
The "oBut now society holds cyclists to impossible moral standards (see the Wiggins case) with consequences arguably more harmful than residual doping.
Say what? Sky themselves put them up in that pedestal and then the whole thing came tumbling down, when they and Wiggins repeatedly lied.
If anything Wiggins has been treated relatively kindly, given his transgressions.
Sky themselves put them up in that pedestal and then the whole thing came tumbling down …
Not sure how anyone could confuse Salbutamol and EPO, but you may be right.
Fact is, he had an overdose of a controlled substance in his blood …
Sky themselves put them up in that pedestal and then the whole thing came tumbling down …
An extremely foolish thing for Sky to have done, in retrospect. On the other hand, the moral landscape has already changed so much since Team Sky’s inception that it’s unfair to judge their past behaviour by today’s standards.
Fact is, he had an overdose of a controlled substance in his blood …
We don’t know that. We only know he had a level of a so-called “Specified” substance in his urine that demands an explanation. The reason an explanation is required is that one is possible that doesn’t involve exceeding the allowed dose. The Swiss anti-doping lab test mentioned on INRNG (http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/) (scroll down to chart) showed that possibility, as well as showing that the concentration in the urine doesn’t scale linearly with inhaled dose.
At present, there’s no evidence that Froome had an “overdose” of salbutamol.
.The "overzealous rules" have been brought in to counter decades of systematic, cynical and increasingly convoluted drug cheating and are targeted at known performance-enhancing drugs. How do you think public confidence would be affected if (as you imply) those pesky rules were relaxed?
Currently we have sportspeople being dragged over the coals for taking legal or inconsequential substances. There is near-zero “public confidence” in cycling despite these actions.
The era of massive oxygen-vector doping is over. That distorted sport as we understand it and was worth fighting with extreme measures. But now society holds cyclists to impossible moral standards (see the Wiggins case) with consequences arguably more harmful than residual doping.
In the present case, the public should simply not know about Froome’s AAF, since people equate an AAF with doping (not to mention salbutamol with EPO). For these reasons and others, the UCI is not allowed to tell us about an AAF unless the athlete consents. Leaks like this one ruin careers and the sport’s reputation. And for what? To sell a week’s worth of fake news. Not cool.
Not sure how anyone could confuse Salbutamol and EPO, but you may be right.
Half truths - those are the things Froome & co have been spreading, right?
Live by the sword/pen/needle ...
I'm pretty ignorant about the mechanics of asthma medication. What does puffing enough to get a dose twice the limit look like?
Think Sky are done. Won’t be a team for 2018.
I'm pretty ignorant about the mechanics of asthma medication. What does puffing enough to get a dose twice the limit look like?
Think Sky are done. Won’t be a team for 2018.
Think Sky are done. Won’t be a team for 2018.
My prediction: I think their results will drop off drastically now, as they race clean. Will end as a team at end of 2018
What does piss me off is […] the holier-than-though attitude
All CF has to demonstrate is that his legal dose regime over a number of hours resulted in a urine salbutamol conc >2ug/ml X hours later. (edit. as has been said I think)
His asthma must be atrocious. I had bad asthma for years and one puff of the inhaler before going out was sufficient for a ride of any length, provided there was no break of more than an hour or two along the way. Basically my tubes would relax after the first 20 mins of exercise, inhaler or no inhaler - the inhaler just made the first 20.minutes bearable. If I coughed and wheezed my way through the first part I would still be ok - but I'd never keep up.There might well be a rat. But Froome has exercise induced asthma, has been photographed taking it during a previous race, and has been reported as coughing more than normal during his post race interviews during the Vuelta.
I smell a rat.
Cycling is being ruined by this combination of overzealous rules, leaks of confidential process, and trial by media. It’s become nigh on impossible to navigate these booby traps while competing at the top. Essentially the rules are constantly changing. Perhaps salvation lies in amateur sport, but if so, what a shame that we cannot have nice things.
Darts is hard to cheat at, especially since they're allowed, nay encouraged, to drink plenty of lager (off stage these days) to loosen their throwing arm ;D
Are they allowed to watch post-race Froome interviews?Darts is hard to cheat at, especially since they're allowed, nay encouraged, to drink plenty of lager (off stage these days) to loosen their throwing arm ;D
Beta-Blockers are on the banned list for darts. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-in-particular-sports/beta-blockers
Are they allowed to watch post-race Froome interviews?Darts is hard to cheat at, especially since they're allowed, nay encouraged, to drink plenty of lager (off stage these days) to loosen their throwing arm ;D
Beta-Blockers are on the banned list for darts. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-in-particular-sports/beta-blockers
I think it's just taken longer for it to come out in athletics, but yes this is all elite level sport and quite a lot of non-elite also. The sophistication has increaased in leaps and bounds though.
On ball games, I suspect doping is rife. Tennis is a good example of a sport where the ability to maintain strength and form over a long match and to recover for the next is critical to success. Hard to believe that players wouldn't benefit from doping and, equally, that the federation would benefit financially from finding their top assets were doing my so.
Doping was rife in baseball...and almost encouraged at one stage (See McQuire/Bonds/A-Rod). Despite the sluggers taking the limelight, pitchers were probably abusing it more as their recovery greatly benefited from steroids. Testing is a lot more rigorous now and doping is widely seen as unethical.
NFL/American football is probably very bad. It's officially banned, but the players organisation has fought any kind of where-abouts/OOC testing system, citing it would be too much for the players.
This carriers through to college football as well.
Hocley seems like a sport that's perfect for wanna-be dopers and testing is very lax. The NHL is more concerned with cocaine use than PEDs. ('cause drugs are bad, mkay?). Most hockey fans denies that doping takes place, because hockey players are hard working honest men.
This is quite a concernI think it's just taken longer for it to come out in athletics, but yes this is all elite level sport and quite a lot of non-elite also. The sophistication has increaased in leaps and bounds though.
On ball games, I suspect doping is rife. Tennis is a good example of a sport where the ability to maintain strength and form over a long match and to recover for the next is critical to success. Hard to believe that players wouldn't benefit from doping and, equally, that the federation would benefit financially from finding their top assets were doing my so.
Apparently top-level (semi-pro or pro level) petanque also has had its share of doping scandal. Obviously Ricard is not sufficient for staying at the top. There are a couple of other unlikely sports with proven doping but I can't remember which now (things like chucking the horseshoe come to mind - not really that but something similar). I think tug-of-war also had a problem once (but that is a very serious sport as most of its participants would readily admit).
...clearly hydration is going to have a huge impact on the outcome of the urine testing...
I expect that concentrations of a range of usual urine consituents of the tested samples can be compared with an individual's 'fully' hydrated reference samples to test hydration status(?)
“Approximately 72% of the inhaled dose is excreted in the urine within 24 hours, 28% as unchanged drug and 44% as metabolite”
Are they counting drug or metabolite or combined total in this analysis?
Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.
Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.Loads of PEDs are harmful to health (especially when abused). Salbutamol, in high doses is linked to sudden cardiac arrest. Amateurs were dying in the early-mid 90s because they took too much EPO and their heart couldn't pump the super thick blood at low bpm when asleep. Steroids have loads of nasty side-effects (especially in women).
That's the point. They should be banned for their harm not their enhancement.Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.Loads of PEDs are harmful to health (especially when abused). ...
...Fair point! Even if Froome turns out to be clean and if you accept their use of TUEs was technically within limits, Sky have broken their own rules, which seems to be what is really annoying people. Liars worse than cheats?!
This is massively off the topic of Sky though...
What, you mean like the laptop that just so happened to get stolen, the hard drive that just so happened to have not been backed up as per protocol and the doctor who just so happened to be ill so he couldn't appear before the enquiry?
It's easy to say that salbutamol doping seems unlikely because it's amateurish. It's equally easy to imagine other mechanisms by which a positive test might have been obtained: blood bag, masking agent, etc etc. The nub of the matter is that Chris Froome is strictly liable for the substances that enter his body, so it's up to him to provide a convincing explanation of how they got there. If he can't do that, he should be punished.
Darts is hard to cheat at, especially since they're allowed, nay encouraged, to drink plenty of lager (off stage these days) to loosen their throwing arm ;Dhttp://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/darts-verband-reagiert-auf-dopingfaelle-a-1184447.html
What would Occam's Razor suggest?His puffer had a mis-labeled capsule in it?
By all accounts medical experts are currently rolfing over kidney excuse.They're trying to align his kidneys with the earth's gravitational field? We knew Sky's doctors were dodgy but not utter quacks!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/feb/12/chris-froome-sky-hiding-behind-letter-of-law
Froome has never taken part in the Giro
Ex-team Sky doctor calls bollocks on Sky excuses:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-team-sky-doctor-lifts-the-lid-on-teams-medical-practices-and-grey-areas/
....on Tuesday he promised: “I’m going to have my say on that very soon.”
"Sir" Wiggins is not happy with neither Sky nor UKAD!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/21/bradley-wiggins-young-cyclists-team-sky-will-ruin-you
I'd be really curious to see what he'd sue UKAD for.
Why on earth do I keep following this thread ?I know that the only riders I am going to take an interest in are GT and Cav. Geraint Can be relied on to crash at any critical moment so the only battle worth following is Cav versus Kittel. The others are making the same mistake as LA. It's not the doping it's acting like à trou de cul while you're doing itThis.
Still nothing to see here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5451759/Banned-testosterone-patches-ordered-Team-Sky-HQ.html
Apparently Wiggins intends 'having his say' in the next few days. That's going to be comedy gold.....
Pretty much the end of Sky.
Probably, but then he must be guilty mustn't he? He has won something after all, hardly the thing for a plucky BRIT to do, we leave all that stuff to Johnny Foreigner
Probably, but then he must be guilty mustn't he? He has won something after all, hardly the thing for a plucky BRIT to do, we leave all that stuff to Johnny Foreigner
And he's not even BRITISH is he?
Anyone else struck by the irony of MPs describing Team Sky's behaviour as 'unethical'?
Nothing like the scale of Cofidis, Festina, US Postal/Discovery etc. IMO
Probably, but then he must be guilty mustn't he? He has won something after all, hardly the thing for a plucky BRIT to do, we leave all that stuff to Johnny Foreigner
Anyone else struck by the irony of MPs describing Team Sky's behaviour as 'unethical'?
Nothing like the scale of Cofidis, Festina, US Postal/Discovery etc. IMO
I'm not a Froome fan, but I can't deny he holds a British passport.Probably, but then he must be guilty mustn't he? He has won something after all, hardly the thing for a plucky BRIT to do, we leave all that stuff to Johnny Foreigner
And he's not even BRITISH is he?
I don’t believe there were any out and out doping but as you say, not keeping records and evident is an invitation to think the worst of people.
The whole Sky drugs story is screwed up because there are so many details that are missing, and what we know doesn't add up.
If it was Triamcinalone in that jiffy bag, then it's doping. They ordered loads of it, used 3 TUEs with Wiggins, and the rest has never been explained. If they just gave it to a bunch of riders with "athsma like Wiggo" then it would be on the edge of the rules but not explicitly outside them. Giant information gap.
The whole jiffy bag thing - giant information gap.
What's going on with Froome - giant information gap.
What happened with Henao - giant information gap.
Each time there's been one of these issues, Sky have lied through their teeth, and we have only found some of the truth because of people outside Sky.
I haven't read it, but does Wiggins mention asthma at all in his autobiography? The BBC says not.
Apparently the whole Norwegian Winter Olympics team claimed a TUE for asthma...this is getting stupid. My GP stopped giving me free flu jabs when I could make the peak flow meter hit its end stop, so it's not as if it's impossible to weed out the bullshitters.
As long as there are completions, people will compete and use what ever means are available to them. Rules and regulations are a cat and mouse game between the governing body and the competitors, with the primary goal being to keep the playing field as level as possible so that the outcome remains unpredictable as possible so that the paying fans get a spectacle. In recent times drugs have been outlawed mainly for moral reasons, although competitive people will continue to seek whatever edge they can regardless of the harm they may be doing to themselves.
Sky are just the latest outfit to be called out for using the regulations to their advantage, mainly because they have been more effective at it than everyone else for too long now.
I note with some cynicism that other teams and professionals are keeping their collective heads down.
The boss of Wiggins’s Team Sky, Sir David Brailsford, became famous the world over for his pursuit of “marginal gains”. For example, during the Tour de France and other races, his riders would have their own, familiar beds bussed ahead of them and set up in whatever hotel they were staying.IMO it would have been disappointing if they had not exploited every loophole possible, a contradiction of their ethos. Shame they got caught, I guess, but kind of inevitable at some point.
Are we meant to be surprised that such a team would exploit the rules to their very maximum capacity? Should the fan feel short-changed by this? That is, almost, a matter of personal taste.
QuoteThe boss of Wiggins’s Team Sky, Sir David Brailsford, became famous the world over for his pursuit of “marginal gains”. For example, during the Tour de France and other races, his riders would have their own, familiar beds bussed ahead of them and set up in whatever hotel they were staying.IMO it would have been disappointing if they had not exploited every loophole possible, a contradiction of their ethos. Shame they got caught, I guess, but kind of inevitable at some point.
Are we meant to be surprised that such a team would exploit the rules to their very maximum capacity? Should the fan feel short-changed by this? That is, almost, a matter of personal taste.
According to The Murdoch, Mr Wiggins did a bad tax thing. Was it a bad as that Carr person? Who knows.
I'm not convinced you have much of a handle on this matt.I believe Armstrong n Contador were banned and lost TdeF titles. The system isnt perfect (of course) but it is there. Riders dope, some get caught (what's new?).
There is a 'system of rules' but as we know from Armstrong's backdated TUE after testing positive, UCI's attempt to bury Contador's clen pozzy, Froome's 'fast-tracked' TUE, Armistead's 3 missed tests and suddenly-reversal-of-automatic-ban-so-that-she-could-ride-the-Olympics, the enforcement of these rules depends on who you are.
Throwing mud at your favourite dodgy rider based on your view of how other riders were treated is at best just gossip. It could be viewed as sour grapes, but I wouldnt like to accuse you of that.
The number of TUEs is dropping rapidly, which some would see as a good thing; or you could just keep slinging mud. Your choice!
It all looks like it is going to come down to medical opinion in the end, with one doctor on the payroll of Sky claiming a medical condition existed and thus a TUE was justified, and another doctor on the payroll of the other side claiming that no medical condition existed and thus the TUE was illegal.
Perhaps the rules need to be changed to allow an drugs you want, but if you die during the race it's instant disqualification form that race. Its probably as sensible solution as anything else anyone is going to come up with and it at least has a chance of being policed fairly.
I'm not convinced you have much of a handle on this matt.I believe Armstrong n Contador were banned and lost TdeF titles. The system isnt perfect (of course) but it is there. Riders dope, some get caught (what's new?).
There is a 'system of rules' but as we know from Armstrong's backdated TUE after testing positive, UCI's attempt to bury Contador's clen pozzy, Froome's 'fast-tracked' TUE, Armistead's 3 missed tests and suddenly-reversal-of-automatic-ban-so-that-she-could-ride-the-Olympics, the enforcement of these rules depends on who you are.
Throwing mud at your favourite dodgy rider based on your view of how other riders were treated is at best just gossip. It could be viewed as sour grapes, but I wouldnt like to accuse you of that.
The number of TUEs is dropping rapidly, which some would see as a good thing; or you could just keep slinging mud. Your choice!
How do you feel now Matt?
Pretty silly? :-[
Just to add to your consternation the President of the UCI has been slinging mud too! :thumbsup:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43316602
Most successful modern sporting nations exhibit key characteristics of the system that allowed East Germany to rack up a string of sporting successes from the late 1960s up until the Seoul Olympics of 1988, a year before the state’s demise.
This is the conclusion of a major new book that is the first English language text that analyses the East German sport system using original Communist Party and STASI sources.
Dr Jonathan Grix (University of Birmingham) and Professor Mike Dennis (University of Wolverhampton) argue that the modern emphasis on state sponsored athletes, the focus on specific sports to maximise a nation’s medal return and the emphasis now placed on talent identification all have their roots in the East German model.
It all looks like it is going to come down to medical opinion in the end, with one doctor on the payroll of Sky claiming a medical condition existed and thus a TUE was justified, and another doctor on the payroll of the other side claiming that no medical condition existed and thus the TUE was illegal.
Using the phrase "expectation of purity" suggests you think the roots might go back to a slightly earlier Germany.
Using the phrase "expectation of purity" suggests you think the roots might go back to a slightly earlier Germany.
I think he means sporting purity, gentlemanly conduct etc, rather than racial purity.
But if we're going back to the 20's, then the concept of training for the Olympics becomes set against the gentlemanly amateur ethos.
Why don't we just have every rider on the same bike, with the same kit, same nutrition, same doctor, and then it is "all about the bike"
Using the phrase "expectation of purity" suggests you think the roots might go back to a slightly earlier Germany.
I think he means sporting purity, gentlemanly conduct etc, rather than racial purity.
But if we're going back to the 20's, then the concept of training for the Olympics becomes set against the gentlemanly amateur ethos.
Why don't we just have every rider on the same bike, with the same kit, same nutrition, same doctor, and then it is "all about the bike"
Because most of them would fall off, as they're only built for one rider.
One possible solution to this quandary would be to take the responsibility for diagnosis out of the hands of any doctors with a vested interest.I've thought for a while that the solution would be for...
In all probability, but it's never safe to assume which cogs are whirring in ESL's brain when he gets historical.Using the phrase "expectation of purity" suggests you think the roots might go back to a slightly earlier Germany.
I think he means sporting purity, gentlemanly conduct etc, rather than racial purity.
But if we're going back to the 20's, then the concept of training for the Olympics becomes set against the gentlemanly amateur ethos.And against the absence of anti-doping rules. Or in fact laws against recreational drug use (first in UK seem to have been 1916, cocaine and morphine).
The one thing that Salzwedel has always strived for is not to become the East German cliché. His focus is on the athletes, the coaching staff is merely supporting structures.
"I introduced a completely new approach – it was not the East German way, but it was my way," he says of his arrival in Australia now over two decades ago. "I was not typical for East Germany either. On the other hand, I was just thinking logically. East Germany was a very small country; we had to look after our talents. Australia was a very small country with 17 million people then, so we had to nurse the talent. Cycling was virtually non-existent. There was a very good track program but on the road, there was virtually nothing there. The British approach was practically identical, that's why when I went back to Great Britain, and it was a philosophy that I could identify with."
While his past successes prove that his is a formula which works, he still finds himself having to convince some of his Russian colleagues that he is acting in the best interests of the program.
The old systems, while successful, were also stigmatised by the doping methods that were employed during the Russian and East German systems while at the top. But they weren't the whole story.
"When you look back at that successful Russian and East German era, absolutely, there were issues but they didn't make a 10 per cent difference, they made a two or three per cent difference," says Popov. "Some of the bad stuff stayed and that's some of the battle, to get rid of the culture of taking things to make you go faster – it's not things that make you go faster it's the culture that makes you go faster."
Team Sky won an overall title today and moved to lead Paree-knee. Bet that will go down well!They won the final stage, not the overall general classification (http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/paris-nice-2018/stage-8/results/). ;)
The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is
highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
beyond what might be anticipated by a return to the Athlete’s normal state of
health following the treatment of the acute or chronic medical condition
(ISTUE Article 4.1(b)).
Although there may be some enhancement of individual performance as a
result of the efficacy of the treatment, nevertheless, such enhancement must
not exceed the level of performance of the Athlete prior to the onset of
his/her medical condition
I don't often read parliamentary reports, so I've only just been made aware of one angle to the report hotly discussed in this thread.
The authors have full legal protection - they could slander/libel Sky as much as they want. They don't need to worry about the niceties of "evidence".
So if they actually think Sky/Wiggins cheated, they would surely have said so.
Apparently Lapartient has referred it to CADF, that'll be the final word.
Apparently Lapartient has referred it to CADF, that'll be the final word.
It will be a good test of the independence of the CADF.
Apparently Lapartient has referred it to CADF, that'll be the final word.
It will be a good test of the independence of the CADF.
...
What narks me about the committee is it was supposed to look at drugs in UK sport and became almost totally focused on Wiggins.
Hardly a mention of Mo Farah's habits of training in places with no anti-doping, his long term association with a convicted EPO supplier, the fact that his passport went from 'likely doping' to 'normal' the instant Seb Coe became head of athletics. Nothing on Radcliffe's crazy off scores. Not a whisper about entire football teams repeatedly failing whereabouts.
Drugs? Yeah, that'll be those dirty cyclists ::-)
I tore up my flag of St George back when cherubic national hero Michael Owen dived at the World Cup :(
If used out of competition, as I understand it, it's semi legal.or "legal", in common with all other tactics that are not against the rules!!!
It's not tested for out of competition - are you really allowed to take as much of it as you like for whatever reasons?
In competition, even with a TUEs, taking kenacort for performance enhancing reasons is against the rules.
Some Belgian races block off the cycle paths. If you don't, and you don't apply retroactive sanctions, IMO you can't complain. The difference between that and drugs is that it's out in the open (TV, your photo, etc)....
It's not tested for out of competition - are you really allowed to take as much of it as you like for whatever reasons?
In competition, even with a TUEs, taking kenacort for performance enhancing reasons is against the rules.
Some Belgian races block off the cycle paths. If you don't, and you don't apply retroactive sanctions, IMO you can't complain. The difference between that and drugs is that it's out in the open (TV, your photo, etc)....
Yeah sure, the clandestine nature of drugs does tend to skew fans' emotive reactions. But then again, real fans, the knowledgable ones (like Flatus :thumbsup: ) know that drug abuse has been a part of cycling from day one. It pretty much IS out in the open - almost everyone knows about it!
I was surprised to hear that Radio 4 this morning had an article that was introduced as being relevant to the need for a change in the English self view that ‘we would never cheat at sport’, as we come face to face with a new (or old) eraYes, though I'm not sure that's really the English self view so much as the view of ourselves we like to think foreigners hold.
Yeah sure, the clandestine nature of drugs does tend to skew fans' emotive reactions. But then again, real fans, the knowledgable ones (like Flatus :thumbsup: ) know that drug abuse has been a part of cycling from day one. It pretty much IS out in the open - almost everyone knows about it!
There was an interesting series of tweets from Ross Tucker (@scienceofsport) saying that the report suggested that Sky found a new means of using legalised doping to gain an advantage. The old way used to be take a light guy and then build his sustainable power by boosting his oxygen carrying ability. The Sky way is to take a track guy with a huge amount of power, and then strip the weight off him while keeping the power by using kenacort. If used out of competition, as I understand it, it's semi legal.This was not Sky, it was Vaughters lot. Look at Wiggins performance in the Giro up until he dropped off the lead group and subsequent 4th in the Tour that year. It also underestimates the seriously huge dedication you need to perform at that level and reduce weight. Very difficult without serious motivation and mental strength. Wiggins was a contender before he signed for Sky.
This was Ross Tucker saying it, not me. He applied it to Wiggins, Froome and G (though why it doesn't apply to Stannard or the other trackies I don't know).There was an interesting series of tweets from Ross Tucker (@scienceofsport) saying that the report suggested that Sky found a new means of using legalised doping to gain an advantage. The old way used to be take a light guy and then build his sustainable power by boosting his oxygen carrying ability. The Sky way is to take a track guy with a huge amount of power, and then strip the weight off him while keeping the power by using kenacort. If used out of competition, as I understand it, it's semi legal.This was not Sky, it was Vaughters lot. Look at Wiggins performance in the Giro up until he dropped off the lead group and subsequent 4th in the Tour that year. It also underestimates the seriously huge dedication you need to perform at that level and reduce weight. Very difficult without serious motivation and mental strength. Wiggins was a contender before he signed for Sky.
Christian Prudhomme, said, "It's a Tour designed to widen the possibilities".[35] The route was noted as being innovative when compared to recent years, with fewer high altitude stage finishes, and more of a focus on medium mountain stages and individual time trials.
There is a simple question to ask about all these issues:
"Is there a rule against it?"
Rasmussen also claimed that Zorzoli was complicit in facilitating fraudulent TUEs. Zorzoli was still the UCI doctor with sole responsibility for signing off TUEs until 2014 (also covering the period when Froome had his TUEs for prednisolone).
Although none of the mud ever stuck to Zorzoli, WADA eventually forced the UCI to change its practices to require TUEs to be signed off by a panel of three doctors, to make fraud more difficult,Which is obviously sensible. Although you have to wonder how much harder it is to bribe 3 doctors, given the $10millions invested by the top teams ....
The UCI's records will probably show that the paperwork for Wiggins and Froome's TUEs is all in order. The question is over the legitimacy of the supporting evidence.Serious question; could you clarify this? Does the team need any supporting evidence? Or do you mean
Serious question; could you clarify this? Does the team need any supporting evidence?
Or do you mean
"the question in the public/fans minds is ... "
Serious question; could you clarify this? Does the team need any supporting evidence?
Yes, they are supposed to provide supporting evidence along with their application for a TUE. The requirements are set out in the UCI guidelines, but they are a bit vague. In the not so distant past, the only evidence required in practice has been a note from the team doctor: "Dear Mario, Bradley is feeling very poorly, please can I rub some cream on his bum? Love, Geert"
The DCMS have suggested that Wiggo's TUE was not required on genuine medical grounds, which implies that the supporting evidence was either falsified or non-existent, or just not checked rigorously enough by the UCI doctor.QuoteOr do you mean
"the question in the public/fans minds is ... "
I have no insight into the process, I'm only considering the known facts. It's the DCMS who have raised the question about the legitimacy of Wiggo's TUEs, even if they don't understand the implications of what they have said.
Lappartient: Chris Froome's case unlikely to be resolved before Giro d'Italia
'Both sides have powerful lawyers, the case is more complicated than usual' says UCI president
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lappartient-chris-froomes-case-unlikely-to-be-resolved-before-giro-ditalia/
Also remember that the Ulissi case took nine months to resolve, iirc.
Some Belgian races block off the cycle paths. If you don't, and you don't apply retroactive sanctions, IMO you can't complain. The difference between that and drugs is that it's out in the open (TV, your photo, etc)....
Yeah sure, the clandestine nature of drugs does tend to skew fans' emotive reactions. But then again, real fans, the knowledgable ones (like Flatus :thumbsup: ) know that drug abuse has been a part of cycling from day one. It pretty much IS out in the open - almost everyone knows about it!
The one that always amuses me is Pelissier in the 20's referring to cocaine and chloroform - "We run on dynamite" ;D
Well, didn't Contador also drag out his 'tainted beef' thing out for as long as possible?.
Cipo was the closest that our sport may ever get to professional wrestling. The whole thing felt like theater. Yeah, there some blood bags, but did you see him win that sprint in the zebra-print skinsuit?All sport is theatre! Some is Shakespeare, some is vaudeville, some is even infant school nativity play, but all theatre.
Time for some light relief
A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/commentary-a-partially-subjective-ranking-of-cyclings-dopers-loved-and-hated/)
Time for some light relief
A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/commentary-a-partially-subjective-ranking-of-cyclings-dopers-loved-and-hated/)
No Bjarne Riis?
Time for some light relief
A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/commentary-a-partially-subjective-ranking-of-cyclings-dopers-loved-and-hated/)
Time for some light relief
A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/commentary-a-partially-subjective-ranking-of-cyclings-dopers-loved-and-hated/)
No Bjarne Riis?
Bjarne Riis is at No. 6
"He [Riis] only did what everyone else was doing"
did other riders from other teams get TUEs?
Wiggins, Froome, Brailsford etc are getting vilified because they are hypocrites. Wiggins said other riders "abused" PEDs but he was allowed to take them by the UCI!Like it or not, that's how the system works - the UCI decides what you can take and when.
True. However, if you come into the sport and announce you are going to be clean and transparently clean, you have to live up to that, or you will get vilified. There is a double standard for Sky, but because they said they wanted to be held to a higher standard than the other teams.Wiggins, Froome, Brailsford etc are getting vilified because they are hypocrites. Wiggins said other riders "abused" PEDs but he was allowed to take them by the UCI!Like it or not, that's how the system works - the UCI decides what you can take and when.
Depends on your definition of clean. If you take that to mean no drugs ever it appears they have not. If by clean you mean entirely within the rules then Wiggo has, Froome TBA.But they sure as hell haven't been transparent.
No matter how many "However"s you tack on, it's still true.True. However, if you come into the sport and announce you are going to be clean and transparently clean, you have to live up to that, or you will get vilified. There is a double standard for Sky, but because they said they wanted to be held to a higher standard than the other teams.Wiggins, Froome, Brailsford etc are getting vilified because they are hypocrites. Wiggins said other riders "abused" PEDs but he was allowed to take them by the UCI!Like it or not, that's how the system works - the UCI decides what you can take and when.
Chris is never winning this Giro. It’s far too frantic and high paced for his train of men to maintain the stranglehold of death style. That last bit of the stage 4 was stunning. 40km/h uphill all the way!
No matter how many "However"s you tack on, it's still true.True. However, if you come into the sport and announce you are going to be clean and transparently clean, you have to live up to that, or you will get vilified. There is a double standard for Sky, but because they said they wanted to be held to a higher standard than the other teams.Wiggins, Froome, Brailsford etc are getting vilified because they are hypocrites. Wiggins said other riders "abused" PEDs but he was allowed to take them by the UCI!Like it or not, that's how the system works - the UCI decides what you can take and when.
You can't bolster an argument by using an increasing number of untrue accusations - the case just becomes weaker. Of course, if you are simply trying to justify a pre-existing decision of guilt/hypocrisy ...
Wiggins and Froome took PEDs using the TUE rules, that is a simple fact not an untrue accusation.
But they are the cleanest team ever with a higher ethical standard.
Wiggins and Froome took PEDs using the TUE rules, that is a simple fact not an untrue accusation.
So what? It's allowed. It's within the rules. It's not cheating. Anyone can do it. (the rules are changing all the time ... but you can still take certain PEDs under certain restrictions. Fact.)
What's your point again?
TUEs are for real medical needs and doesn't include faking an illness so you can take PEDs.
Surely it’s up to the authority granting the TUE to determine the genuiness or ortherwise of the request? Teams will always try it on.Yes. It's not just Sky gaming the system, it's the system conniving with doping. Which doesn't make it right, but did make it approved (even if it shouldn't have been).
Surely it’s up to the authority granting the TUE to determine the genuiness or ortherwise of the request? Teams will always try it on.Yes, but there is then a right of appeal to Social Media - if they judge you guilty, you should be banned. Simples!
What many forget/don't-understand is that they have NO IDEA who was faking an illness, who wasn't, and which non-SKY teams have "stretched" the rules.TUEs are for real medical needs and doesn't include faking an illness so you can take PEDs.
This is the key point that many forget / don't understand when claiming Sky were acting within the rules.
Surely it’s up to the authority granting the TUE to determine the genuiness or ortherwise of the request? Teams will always try it on.Yes, but there is then a right of appeal to Social Media - if they judge you guilty, you should be banned. Simples!
Actually Matt, we do, because most teams signed up to the MPCC.
He and Sky are still dopers. Good enough for you?
Reality doesn't need fanciful phrases. I'll leave that to the bullshitters.
Perhaps it was more verbosity I was expecting...
Boo. I hope he loses.
Just read the statement. It provides no evidence as to why this decision was reached.
Here is what Parisotto has to say...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/clearing-chris-froome-lacks-credibility-without-providing-evidence-says-anti-doping-expert/
Froome is saying details will be released in due course.
Am I the only person out there that thinks that everyone who hasn't failed a drug test is innocent? Am I naive for thinking that Froome is clean and just a good athlete? Marianne Vos is clearly the greatest pro cyclist of our generation, but the results of Froome are almost on an equal. Do we have to point the finger and say it's all from pharmacy? or can we just, for a minute, conclude that he's a good cyclist?
J
Am I the only person out there that thinks that everyone who hasn't failed a drug test is innocent? Am I naive for thinking that Froome is clean and just a good athlete? Marianne Vos is clearly the greatest pro cyclist of our generation, but the results of Froome are almost on an equal. Do we have to point the finger and say it's all from pharmacy? or can we just, for a minute, conclude that he's a good cyclist?
J
^
This.
Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.
But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.
Jeannie Longo might dispute that assessment of Marianne Vos (or is it that I am Longo's generation and you are Vos'?) Of course Longo would never dope, her husband just bought the stuff for others ??? )
^
This.
Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.
But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.
OOI does a 'lens of poetic faith' work for you when watching the TdF?
In English please.
^
This.
Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy the racing.
But yes. Naive. Lance Armstrong never failed a test (apart from the one he failed, but paid $100k hush money). Very few big busts have been as a result of anti-doping tests.
OOI does a 'lens of poetic faith' work for you when watching the TdF?
In English please.
['Suspension of disbelief'] was coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817 with the publication of his Biographia literaria or biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions:
"In this idea originated the plan of the 'Lyrical Ballads'; in which it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith."
I'll probably regret posting this as it's not far off the helmet debate in that people have their opinions and are fairly strongly held.
I'd love to be convinced Wiggins and Froome are clean and that sky have given us great British champions (we will ignore the Kenya thing for the purpose of this).
I could accept the whole jiffy bag thing as explained
I could accept that Froome took his medicine for asthma and for whatever reason it have a slightly high reading.
Unfortunately for me I find it harder to accept that both can be explained away. Whatever the truth is it has certainly tarnished my love of the tdf
WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
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.
In twenty years time we'll have a much better idea whether we could have been cheering on the best stage racer of his generation, or should having been booing yet another another drugs cheat.Given the number of cheats proven and suspected, it's probably the whole system and environment we should be booing, or at least casting a critical eye over. And not just racing.
There's something sad about that, our own cynicism may prevent us from fully enjoying the now.
It's a human weakness that extends far beyond sport.
It’s a weakness that extends beyond people.
However, some people keep this weakness under control. Those who dismiss this possibility perhaps reveal by their doubt their own weakness. They cannot imagine that others would resist cheating if the stakes were high enough. Maybe it’s because my whole life is lived according to principles that others reject that this is less troublesome for me.
More importantly, the scope for cheating in cycling has been drastically reduced. So even where cheating happens, it’s tinkering at the edges of legality rather than the large-scale banned methods of the blood-transfusion and EPO eras. The fuss caused by Froome’s AAF for an asthma medication shows that the moral stance on cheating has changed, as in its own already-dated way does Wiggin’s TUE. You could argue the puritans have gone too far, but their zeal was aroused by the injustices of the Armstrong years.
It’s a weakness that extends beyond people.
However, some people keep this weakness under control. Those who dismiss this possibility perhaps reveal by their doubt their own weakness. They cannot imagine that others would resist cheating if the stakes were high enough. Maybe it’s because my whole life is lived according to principles that others reject that this is less troublesome for me.
More importantly, the scope for cheating in cycling has been drastically reduced. So even where cheating happens, it’s tinkering at the edges of legality rather than the large-scale banned methods of the blood-transfusion and EPO eras. The fuss caused by Froome’s AAF for an asthma medication shows that the moral stance on cheating has changed, as in its own already-dated way does Wiggin’s TUE. You could argue the puritans have gone too far, but their zeal was aroused by the injustices of the Armstrong years.
I'll probably regret posting this as it's not far off the helmet debate in that people have their opinions and are fairly strongly held.
I'd love to be convinced Wiggins and Froome are clean and that sky have given us great British champions (we will ignore the Kenya thing for the purpose of this).
I could accept the whole jiffy bag thing as explained
I could accept that Froome took his medicine for asthma and for whatever reason it have a slightly high reading.
Unfortunately for me I find it harder to accept that both can be explained away. Whatever the truth is it has certainly tarnished my love of the tdf
Why should they be any 'better' than all the other great cyclists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France)
Really, posting it once would have been sufficient. Three times is overkill.
Quite.Really, posting it once would have been sufficient. Three times is overkill.
All three threads are discussing the Froome case and it appears to have relevance to this thread, the TdF thread and Doping In The Pro Cycling World, particularly as it really does question whether tests are fit for purpose.
In fact, we should really have MORE threads about Sky/Froome.
Can you imagine one of the all time greats turns out to be a cheating liar!
If we think of the TdF 5 time or more winners as among cycling's greatest, what do their records tell us?
Anquetil never denied using drugs.
Merkx failed three drug tests yet we (including me) consider him to be the greatest cyclist of all time.
Hinault is in the record books as clean but is not without suspicion.
Indurain only got caught using Salbutomol, the same drug Froome uses.
Armstrong, the cheating liar.
Only 1 out of 5 not being a known drug user.
Did you see how wafer-thin he looked though? Properly ill-looking thin.They're not called racing snakes for nothing :)
Any evidence for this?
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
What is the relevance of this quote to the events surrounding Team Sky, the revelations over their abuse of Cortisone highlighted by the DCMS?
Your posts veer towards personal attack aimed at shutting down discussion. The internet was awash with mouthholes like you trying to do exactly the same during the Armstrong era, with exactly the same specious arguments and personalisation of issues.
You should see a doctor about that buzzing noise in your head.
You should see a doctor about that buzzing noise in your head.Very little point in seeing a doctor about a buzzing noise I your head. there is very little anyone can do for tinnitus unfortunately.
If you don't like discussions about Sky Doping, perhaps you shouldn't spend so much time on a thread about Sky Doping. As it is, your only contribution is to attempt to drag it down to the level of nasty personal attack.
Know that I'm looking down on you. Laughing.
It's total speculation that the people cheering in the first video are the people that campaigned for the ban. I would say it's highly unlikely (unless there is further evidence in your links - which I haven't read!)Any evidence for this?
Prior to the 'Fancy Bears' revelations. Bradley Wiggins's ride on the A63 TT course was getting lots of positive coverage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbP-kvNwYsc
That's the course they want to ban TTs on.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/07/cyclists-face-ban-from-a63-near-hull-after-accidents
The more we do down the public's heroes, the more we diminish support for road cycling. That's probably not the main intention of the Russian hackers, just a by-product.
I've got one as a pub bike. It's my Pintarello.
I also have a special bike to ride if I feel like drinking vermouth. It's a Cinzanelli.I've got one as a pub bike. It's my Pintarello.
I've got one of the Scandium/Carbon frames from the late 90s, as ridden by Jan Ullrich. It featured in a short film I did about volunteers and the LEL in 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ4Y2fx3rtU
That was the high point of post 'Gamesmakers' voluntarism, inspired by the success of Wiggins, Farah et al. It was inevitable that there would be a backlash against Sir Brad and Sir Dave at some point. It's not as marked as the backlash against Riis, Ullrich and Deutsche Telecom, but that was more justified.
I listened to a US time-trialling podcast about Michael Broadwith's End to End record, and how it reflected a purer type of cycling than the Pro scene. The 'dot-watching' sub-culture reflects that, but it strikes me that fatalities have had an impact there.
There's plenty to question in Sky's approach, especially the disparity in the resources they employ. But they were effective in garnering more interest in cycle sport. The pinnacle in naive enthusiasm is an expensive Pinarello. But other brands have always had more cachet, mainly Colnago. I'd certainly rather have one than a Pinarello if I was into the 'retro' scene, but I've got a Raleigh Record Ace that would do for that.
There comes a point where the negative impact of doing down Sky outweighs their peccadilloes. For me, that was passed when Wiggins and Froome were cleared by WADA.
Still lots of noise, but no bite.
I see Gerry Thomas is promoting helmet compulsion. So that's 2 out of 3 SKY tour winners.
I'm sure Flatus will join me in condemning these idiots :thumbsup:
Wiggins is a grade 1 dickhead and drugs cheat, same as Armstrong.
Wiggins is a grade 1 dickhead and drugs cheat, same as Armstrong.
Wiggins has a new book out, hence hitting the media circus hard. Not everybody is willing to give him a free ride...
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-sir-wiggo-gets-back-to-brass-necks-37489358.html
Wiggins is a grade 1 dickhead and drugs cheat, same as Armstrong.
Wiggins has a new book out, hence hitting the media circus hard. Not everybody is willing to give him a free ride...
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-sir-wiggo-gets-back-to-brass-necks-37489358.html
I think Wiggins has a point. However much you love or loathe either Mr Wiggins or Mr Armstrong, Lance was in many ways an icon - focused, dedicated, determined, utterly committed. He did step over the line, in a major way, both in a coordinated program of cheating and deception and by his intimidation of other riders that might expose that cheating and deception.
That gives observers a binary decision. You can decided that the faults mean that you write off the individual as totally worthless and disregard any of their achievements, or you can look at them as a flawed character and consider both their strengths and weaknesses. In these days it might seem counter-cultural to do the latter, but IMHO we have more to learn from the latter approach than the former.
Exactly. Wiggins was someone who painted himself as whiter than white, and one of the ways he did that was by talking trash about dopers. However, since the fancy bears stuff, and the jiffy bag, and all that other controversy, Wiggins' halo has slipped, and now he's not talking trash about dopers any more. Loads of are clearly going to people put 2 and 2 together.Wiggins is a grade 1 dickhead and drugs cheat, same as Armstrong.
Wiggins has a new book out, hence hitting the media circus hard. Not everybody is willing to give him a free ride...
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-sir-wiggo-gets-back-to-brass-necks-37489358.html
I think Wiggins has a point. However much you love or loathe either Mr Wiggins or Mr Armstrong, Lance was in many ways an icon - focused, dedicated, determined, utterly committed. He did step over the line, in a major way, both in a coordinated program of cheating and deception and by his intimidation of other riders that might expose that cheating and deception.
That gives observers a binary decision. You can decided that the faults mean that you write off the individual as totally worthless and disregard any of their achievements, or you can look at them as a flawed character and consider both their strengths and weaknesses. In these days it might seem counter-cultural to do the latter, but IMHO we have more to learn from the latter approach than the former.
None of that is at issue.
What is at issue is Wiggins's inconsistency regarding his comments towards Armstrong.
He's also using it to talk back at everyone who had a go over the DCMS report, and again, that's his prerogative, but you can't do that and complain about how you are treated and how your family have been treated. He's the one pulling it back into the public eye. Again.
That is not really what we are talking about. We aren't talking about doping, we are talking about what athletes say about doping.
Wiggo mostly talks bollocks, and Sky are a cynical money-making machine. The biggest danger from Sky is that they make cycle-racing boring.
Although that does make oneself a hostage to fortune when it involves (as I will be honest in admitting) cheering on Vinokourov in his vain attempts to defeat Armstrong.
Although that does make oneself a hostage to fortune when it involves (as I will be honest in admitting) cheering on Vinokourov in his vain attempts to defeat Armstrong.
I always used to root for Ullrich to beat Armstrong.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/ex-sky-doctor-to-face-medical-tribunal-hincapie-racing-secures-future-daily-news-digest/
^ Yes, they do, which will mean a new sponsor will have to buy 'Team Sky', I believe. As well as fund it to the tune of £30m a year. The liability for Bernal and GT with their 5 and 3 year contracts may still rest with Sky, which means these riders may find they have little choice for whom they ride.
Either way, I think the days of Team Sky, as is, are over, which has to be a good thing.
One other factor is that there is no longer any guarantee for Sky's salaries next autumn....which means a new owner/sponsor needs to be found in short order.
Well!
unless they find one big magical new sponsor, this is certainly going to shake things up!
( Presumably there will be some younger GC riders at the other teams getting nervous about Froome/Thomas/et al coming onto the market. )One other factor is that there is no longer any guarantee for Sky's salaries next autumn....which means a new owner/sponsor needs to be found in short order.
Do you mean nobody except GT and Bernal? [Sorry, I've made no effort to research these facts myself! ]
What is the legal situation with a team offering new long contracts that it might have had reason to assume couldn't be honoured? After all they knew that Sky was changing hands and that the new corporate owners might have different ideas. The likes of GT and Bernal presumably had some interest from other teams - can their lawyers and managers now come back on Team Sky for misinformation or whatever or are team contracts written in favour of the sponsors options?
What's the likelihood of there being a major British pro cycling team post SKY?
What's the likelihood of there being a major British pro cycling team post SKY?
What's the likelihood of there being a major British pro cycling team post SKY?PLenty of pundits have said this before me:
"British" to the extent that they are 56% owned by the federal reserve of Bahrain!
Mclaren just bought a 50% stake in Bahrain Merida. So that's one of the big British firms that could have stumped for former team sky, off the list.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/46536013
J
"British" to the extent that they are 56% owned by the federal reserve of Bahrain!
(which I wouldn't have learned without following your link, QG :thumbsup: )
Perhaps James Dyson could be tempted.
It's a flag of convenience. Sticking with the motorsport link it's well known the largest pool of experienced engineers, mechanics and support companies are within a 30 mile radius of Northampton so most companies are based near there - in F1 only Ferrari break that mould and even they have an engineering centre in the UK.
Well he's given evidence anyway (in writing). My reading is that it backs Varnish's case, but the Judge doesn't rate his view as very significant:
Dr Richard Freeman pulls out of attending (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46542615)
Varnish's lawyer David Reade QC said an ongoing General Medical Council investigation into Freeman, a former Team Sky doctor, had caused his legal team to reconsider his attendance.
Freeman is due to appear at a GMC hearing in February to explain how a mystery delivery of testosterone arrived at Team Sky's headquarters in 2011.
Tell us something that wasn't absolutely obvious from the off.
However, the fact he is facing proceedings from the GMC rather than WADA is akin to Al Capone being done for tax evasion rather than organised racketeering and murder.Presumably the GMC's powers are limited to striking him off and fining him, but a GMC tribunal wouldn't preclude charges from WADA.
<checks sports news>Bit of a Freudian slip from that BBC piece?
Oh. Boy...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46870091
I'm loving the fact that Freeman lied to Dr Steve Peters about the dope (and got the dope company to fabricate an email).I think it remains to be proven that this did occur, but I admit it would be funny if it did.
So Peters was busy ascribing all the success of BC/Sky to him releasing riders from their inner chimp, when all along it was really good old weapons-grade dope ;D
In November 2017, British Cycling announced its intention to sever ties with Fit4Sport because they said the company - along with Freeman - had not co-operated with their investigation.
There is no sport untouched by doping: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/47420065A rollercoaster of a read! You keep moving further to one side of the issue, and then comes the final line, with a fact that rapidly changed my opinion of the key player in the story:
Team Ineos
Freeman has managed to evade his GMC hearing. It is likely to now happen next year...and it's only March).
The game, called Virtual Cycling, allows gamblers to place bets on a piece of paper obtained over the counter, showing a graphic similar to a roulette table. The game features a maximum stake of £500, five times what was possible on the FOBT games that are now banned. Players bet on when an animated cyclist travelling around a track will be overtaken by virtual competitors, based on numbers corresponding to sections of the track.
Freeman finally speaks out and there's a partial admission to what everyone suspected all along - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/50219337 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/50219337)
I really wish Veloman was here, he and Flatus would make such a cute pair right now.
I'm not very concerned about the Sky allegations, it's pro-cycling after all.
I'm more interested in Heiko Salzwedel and British Cycling. I've always been a bit uneasy about GB becoming the new East Germany.
I'm not very concerned about the Sky allegations, it's pro-cycling after all.
I'm more interested in Heiko Salzwedel and British Cycling. I've always been a bit uneasy about GB becoming the new East Germany.
The BBC reported that Freeman’s lawyer, Mary O’Rourke, said her client had been prescribed a skiing holiday by his doctor and wouldn’t be able to attend the tribunal if it were extended in to the New Year.
Asked for his opinion of the drug culture within cycling at the time, and whether he would have been aware of testosterone’s performance-enhancing properties, Freeman said: “No, I wouldn't have, really. I came into cycling quite fresh.”https://road.cc/content/news/freeman-says-unaware-testosterone-boosts-performance-278881
QuoteAsked for his opinion of the drug culture within cycling at the time, and whether he would have been aware of testosterone’s performance-enhancing properties, Freeman said: “No, I wouldn't have, really. I came into cycling quite fresh.”https://road.cc/content/news/freeman-says-unaware-testosterone-boosts-performance-278881
Dodgier and dodgier.
Why didn't Dr Freeman just prescribe Viagra and cokaine for Sutton?And a swimming pool full of champagne to drive a Rolls-Royce into. Or aren't TdF cyclists quite in the Premier League footballer and 80s rock star category?
If we ever get to know who was lying most - Sutton or Freeman (+ et al)?
Typical omnishambles, innit?
+ very human and so life as theatre
Makes you wonder just how much of an arsehole you'd have to have been to have a team mate from 33 years ago travel abroad to give evidence against you.
Sutton was a work-a-day pro. His brother Gary had real class, World and Olympic champion on the track.
and some naivety (Sky, Sutton, Peters didn’t know).
GMC QC is suggesting that Freeman set up Sutton as the fall-guy ;DSeems an odd argument from GMC, suggesting Freeman ordered testogel to get Sutton in the shit as it sort of contradicts the accusation they are trying to prove that he bought to supply a rider. It does explain the glaring paper trail he chose to leave rather than purchasing the drugs off the internet using his wife’s PayPal account.
ie. He covered his own arse and got revenge on Sutton. If true, Freeman really is quite a piece of work*
*which means he will have fitted in perfectly at Team Sky
If anything, and if true, I think Freeman should be cleared of all charges in reward for his exemplary trolling skillz.Well that made me burst out laughing. ;D
If anything, and if true, I think Freeman should be cleared of all charges in reward for his exemplary trolling skillz.Well that made me burst out laughing. ;D
and some naivety (Sky, Sutton, Peters didn’t know).
Yerrite ;D
Sutton is a notorious doper.
It's just not feasible to think that Sky employed Leinders not knowing that he had been doper-in-chief at Rabobank. It is exactly why they employed him. And it was a good move...look what happened to Team Sky's results after he worked for them...
and some naivety (Sky, Sutton, Peters didn’t know).
Yerrite ;D
Sutton is a notorious doper.
It's just not feasible to think that Sky employed Leinders not knowing that he had been doper-in-chief at Rabobank. It is exactly why they employed him. And it was a good move...look what happened to Team Sky's results after he worked for them...
Sutton has never failed a dope rest. He has never had a warning of being close to the line on a dope test. He has never avoided a dope test.
The “ evidence” at the Freeman hearing became no evidence under examination.
I don’t see how that can make him “ notorious”.
Does this taint the whole Brailsford operation?
Freeman is apparently diagnosed with bipolar disorder hence the duplicity. Not that I am trying to defend him particularly but if he has a serious condition none of this will have helped that condition and would explain some of the behaviour.
The question remains if he ordered the testogel on his own or if it was an instruction from elsewhere in the team. If it came from within the team and they have hung him out to dry then that is a real tragedy.
Does this taint the whole Brailsford operation?
Ah yes. Astana beans, wasn't it. I can't remember what he put in them.
Such a pity that Sam was such an arsehole, and deleted several years of amazing posts.
David Walsh on Sky News just now, not mincing his words.
David Walsh on Sky News just now, not mincing his words.
Would be nice if we had an opportunity to celebrate a genuine success that wasn't founded in cheating and underpinned by exceptionalist mythology.
But that Obree chap was a mechanical doper. It’s well known that he used washing machine parts in the construction of his rule breaking bicycle.
Would be nice if we had an opportunity to celebrate a genuine success that wasn't founded in cheating and underpinned by exceptionalist mythology.
Step into this handy police box; we're going back to the 1990s to cheer on G Obree and Nice C Boardman ;)
If it is anything like the rest of the right-wing fuckwads' output it will be that all the Sky sceptics will be 'delighted to have an opportunity to denigrate our country yet again', or some such other stupidity.
Would be nice if we had an opportunity to celebrate a genuine success that wasn't founded in cheating and underpinned by exceptionalist mythology.
The rest of the world knew Sky was cheating heavily, so their opinion has just been validated. Only in this mental shit hole of a backward nation was it a matter of misplaced patriotism and nationalistic bullshit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56400388
"Sir Bradley Wiggins wants a new inquiry into why banned testosterone was ordered in 2011 by ex-British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman."
:o :thumbsup:
I actually lol'd when I read this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56400388
"Sir Bradley Wiggins wants a new inquiry into why banned testosterone was ordered in 2011 by ex-British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman."
:o :thumbsup:
I actually lol'd when I read this.
...If it's the former, I look forward to hearing your deposition to the inquiry. No, not this.
If it's the latter, But, this.
I'm sorry, but I prefer to wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other... Good for you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56400388
"Sir Bradley Wiggins wants a new inquiry into why banned testosterone was ordered in 2011 by ex-British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman."
:o :thumbsup:
I actually lol'd when I read this.
Did you? Is because that's because you have inside information as to what happened, and who intended to do what, or because you've assumed you can make a judgement without that information? If it's the former, I look forward to hearing your deposition to the inquiry. If it's the latter, I'm sorry, but I prefer to wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other, assessed and weighed by those qualified to judge, and prepared to set their judgement in front of the public.
Don't get me wrong; I have no information either way and I'm in no position to judge. But I am aware how circumstantial 'evidence', when assessed by the public, is often nothing of the sort and is simply a vehicle for people's prejudice. I have no idea whether Bradley Wiggins is guilty of anything illegal, but I'm quite sure that if I was in his position, and I was not guilty of any wrongdoing, I'd want all the evidence brought out, so I don't 'LOL' at his statement.
At the end of the day none of this will make a damn bit of difference to me, but I worry that good people will be brought down simply because it's 'ok' to suggest that everyone in pro cycling is guilty by association - and those doing the assuming and declaring guilt are not at any reputational risk while they're doing their armchair quarterbacking.
As per the law, I will assume innocence until guilt is proven. And I won't claim 'I told you so' whichever way it goes.
I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.
It's not the doping that annoys me, actually, because pro cycling is and always has been a circus. It's the hypocrisy and the telling of lies that never needed to be told.Froome’s W/kg did change dramatically as did his bra size
Sky were a joke pre-2011 season. Then they employed the now lifetime-banned Dr Leinders, who had managed Rabobanks doping programme, Team Sky then became the most successful stage race team in the world. At the same time as declaring a much publicised zero tolerance policy. Friome went from being an out of contract donkey to a Superman.
I mean, yes, a bit of suspension of disbelief is required in all pro sports, but this was just a little too much ;D
He was stick thin at Sky pre 2011 Vuelta. ;)He was getting thinner by summer of 2010 ... (https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/NGAPdro8z5Mg2xf6QcAgk4-970-80.jpg) but not “stick thin”. The dramatic change came when his arms were no longer strong enough to lift a pie.
I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.
If not clean, one of the cleaner in his sport. He was a phenomenal talent since he was a lad, didn't come out of nowhere like some of his opponents.
Anecdotally, his body shape didn't look as pumped up by steroids like that of his opponents either.
I don't think anyone at that level can be 100% clean and maybe we should settle for 90% or something...
That second list shows that it is very difficult not to get caught. The world is a big place yet you do sometimes get sports dominated by a small number of people. When there is obvious skill factor like tennis or snooker it is just accepted. There is clearly something freakishly unusual about Bolt, either his ability to run fast or his ability to not get caught taking drugs. Either ability he held for a very long time from when he decimated the field at his first U20 world champs aged 15.I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.
If not clean, one of the cleaner in his sport. He was a phenomenal talent since he was a lad, didn't come out of nowhere like some of his opponents.
Anecdotally, his body shape didn't look as pumped up by steroids like that of his opponents either.
I don't think anyone at that level can be 100% clean and maybe we should settle for 90% or something...
(https://miro.medium.com/max/2100/1*jjuBLS7MuRhq9U-qsAA2jQ.png)
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1524/1*7xcoGuK__MXuinvdINlzSA.png)
These illustrate the problem. You can do the same with Radcliffe, and others.
I think trying to define 90% clean is actually more difficult than clean. Otoh, I know it’s part of the circus. Sky, like USP, were just nasty with it and that has a price attached.
He said he was "shocked" by GMC verdict
I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.
I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.
Forgot to say...
Armstrong didn't (and possibly still doesn't) regard himself as a cheat, on the basis that doping was available to all, used by most, and therefore he wasn't cheating anyone.
It doesn't matter what institution you are in, whether sport, military, police or other work, there is always a culture with sometimes attitudes that are both endemic and morally corrosive. For example I know firsthand of the culture of racism that existed in the Met pre-McPherson, and maybe some of us heard about the culture of executing unarmed prisoners/non-combatants in Afghanistan by Aus SAS.
People's moral compasses can go awry if they think immoral and illegal behaviour is acceptable within their peers.
My feeling is that many/most pro cyclists of that era operated in a parallel morality. Take Armstrong. He's not furious that he was banned. He's furious that Landis talked.
That's a very serious post for what is ultimately a frivolous topic (professional sport) but it's a point that's totally worth making.I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.
Forgot to say...
Armstrong didn't (and possibly still doesn't) regard himself as a cheat, on the basis that doping was available to all, used by most, and therefore he wasn't cheating anyone.
It doesn't matter what institution you are in, whether sport, military, police or other work, there is always a culture with sometimes attitudes that are both endemic and morally corrosive. For example I know firsthand of the culture of racism that existed in the Met pre-McPherson, and maybe some of us heard about the culture of executing unarmed prisoners/non-combatants in Afghanistan by Aus SAS. Things that outside of that bubble are unconscionable.
People's moral compasses can go awry if they think immoral and illegal behaviour is acceptable within their peers.
My feeling is that many/most pro cyclists of that era operated in a parallel morality. Take Armstrong. He's not furious that he was banned. He's furious that Landis talked.
In 5 weeks time the statute of limitations kicks in and they will have got away with it.
In 5 weeks time the statute of limitations kicks in and they will have got away with it.
If you believe that, you'll believe Lance still has five of his Tour wins.
I'm not a big believer of "no smoke without fire". Tbf I am more suspicious of the current Tour winner than of past winners who have been tested and investigated but nothing concrete has been found.
I wonder if Armstrong will ever revise his first book? "It's All About The Drugs" would be a good title and it would probably sell quite well.It's no joke - if he writes a Millar-style confessional it will sell millions.
He'll have to publish it fairly soon, while he's still the champion that lost, rather than just another bygone name.I wonder if Armstrong will ever revise his first book? "It's All About The Drugs" would be a good title and it would probably sell quite well.It's no joke - if he writes a Millar-style confessional it will sell millions.
I think you've put the wrong link there!^^He'll have to publish it fairly soon, while he's still the champion that lost, rather than just another bygone name.I wonder if Armstrong will ever revise his first book? "It's All About The Drugs" would be a good title and it would probably sell quite well.It's no joke - if he writes a Millar-style confessional it will sell millions.
I think that blaming Sky/Brailsford/BC for climate change and the spread of infectious diseases is probably a little unfair ;)
The gift that keeps on giving
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2021-10/wada-issues-report-from-investigation-into-allegations-regarding-british-cycling?amp&__twitter_impression=true
The gift that keeps on giving
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2021-10/wada-issues-report-from-investigation-into-allegations-regarding-british-cycling?amp&__twitter_impression=true
"An operation into investigating contaminated supplements" sounds suspiciously like working out exactly what level of microdosing gets picked up by the (unofficial) testing.
It's not the cheating I care about, that is just normal.
It's the gaslighting bullshit about marginal gains, whiter than white, higher standards bla bla bla.
I simply do not believe BC are on the side of doping cyclists,