Sky - gaming the system?

[Exit Stage Left]

Tdf 2012 was focused on TTs and smaller mountains.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Tour_de_France


Possibly because it preceded the Olympics, where many riders wanted to show well. That's why it favoured Wiggins. He'd have been daft not to maximise his one chance of victory.

[αdαmsκι]

There is a simple question to ask about all these issues:
"Is there a rule against it?"

Certainly there's a rule against using a TUE to allow one to use a performance enhancing drug when it's not medically required, as David Walsh explains in this article


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/sir-dave-brailsford-the-dark-knight-of-british-cylcing-under-seige-dvbx9c6v3 (Register with The Times and you'll get to read the article for free.)

"The parliamentary committee delivered its report last week and it stands as a damning indictment of the moral and ethical iffiness that underpinned the culture at Team Sky. “Contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the Wada rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need,” the committee concluded in its report, unaware perhaps that if an athlete uses proscribed drugs to enhance performance they will have strayed well beyond Wada’s rules."

It's interesting that Wiggins got his first TUE six months after Dr Leinders was appointed to Sky. This is Dr Leinders who "during his time at Rabobank ... used therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) to boost his riders’ performances. Former team leader Rasmussen has said the doctor would provide false medical certificates so that the team’s riders could receive TUEs allowing them to take banned substances. These included Triamcinolone, which was taken before the Tour de France. "

[citoyen]

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, and Zorzoli quit cycling to spend more time with his family.

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.

[mattc]

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).

 *BONG* Corrupt UCI official identified *BONG*     not big news. Sadly.

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
"the question in the public/fans minds is ... "

[citoyen]

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.

Or 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.

[Si S]

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.

Or 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.

my bold

AIUI it wasn't Zorzoli's job to question the veracity of the supporting evidence, only to assess whether the evidence submitted met the, very loosely interpreted, criteria. The onus was on the team doctor to provide truthful statements, hence why Zorzoli walked and Leinders was banned for life.

[rafletcher]

The Graun published an article today, saying it “understands” from two senior cycling sources that ASO won’t allow Froome to ride the TdF if his “potential anti-doping allegation” is still unresolved by the time of the race, as it has discretion in who it registers for the event, and is confident any legal challenge from Sky could be resisted.

[TigaSefi]

Can it not be extended to Giro? He really should be taking the ban and loss of title for a year.

[Karla]

ASO don't own the Giro, you'd be looking at RCS sport for that.

[DuncanM]

And RCS had spent quite some time last year negotiating with Froome to go to the Giro. Rumours were that they were paying appearance money. Froome not going would mean fewer journalists showing up in Jerusalem (a whole other topic) to cover the Giro...

[Si S]

RCS have exactly the same clause as ASO and Vegni has said he thinks he'd lose at CAS. The difference I think comes down when any potential ban is likely to be applied. If Sky are co-operating and the hearing is as quick as possible any ban is from the hearing date and results between AAF and decision stand, so the Giro result would stand. If Sky are judged to be stalling, which is likely if the case isn't resolved by the Tour, then any ban can be backdated to when a hearing could have occurred so the Tour result could be stripped.

David's point about the extra publicity is a good one, just look at the Ruta del Sol organisers reaction to the media circus. ASO probably have a different view.

[andyoxon]

Why hasn't Salbutamol-gate been resolved yet?  How long does it take to run some dose / blood concn tests  under some different controlled conditions?

[citoyen]

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.

[mzjo]

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.

I can see that it might be in the lawyers' interests to prolong the affair with superfluous hot air and verbiage. I am not convinced it is in the interests of the organisers, the UCI or even Froome and the other riders in the circus.

[mzjo]

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  ) 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" 

But doping in cycling predates the Pelissiers by a few decades. It is a throwback to the 19th century sporting culture. It's just that we are now in the 21st century (at least most of us).
On mechanical doping, let's not forget the Michelins spreading tacks on the route of Paris-Brest (1904?, I don't have the date in front of me). Of course the playing field was levelled; even their own rider had punctures - just that he had the means to repair them!!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I thought the second placed PBPer was on cushion tyres while the 1891 winner was on Michelin pneumatics. The winner only stopped getting lots of flats after he passed the eventual second place.

Edit - Second place was on Dunlop pneumatic tyres.

[Pingu]

Chris Froome doping investigation looks set to go beyond Tour de France

[Jakob]

Well, didn't Contador also drag out his 'tainted beef' thing out for as long as possible?.

[Si S]

Well, didn't Contador also drag out his 'tainted beef' thing out for as long as possible?.

Sort of...Contador was banned initally due to clenbuterol not being a specified substance, then cleared by the Spanish federation so fine to race before being banned after a UCI appeal to CAS.

The system is set-up very different now so the two processes are not really comparable.

[Karla]

Time for some light relief

A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips

[Cudzoziemiec]

 

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.

[Jakob]

Time for some light relief

A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips

No Bjarne Riis?

[Relayer]

Time for some light relief

A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips

No Bjarne Riis?

Bjarne Riis is at No. 6

[Exit Stage Left]

Time for some light relief

A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips

A UK perspective would have Tom Simpson.

[Jakob]

Time for some light relief

A partially subjective ranking of cycling’s dopers, loved and hated - Cyclingtips

No Bjarne Riis?

Bjarne Riis is at No. 6

Ah! Not sure how I missed that!. it is interesting, though, as my internal bias is very much going "He only did what everyone else was doing" and I still have a very hard time condemning him for it...even though logically, it should be very easy!. (So I can see where the Team Sky fans are coming from).