Sky - gaming the system?

[mattc]

. It looks a lot like the latter.

Remind me - is there a "Looks a lot like cheating" rule?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

He has taken a performance enhancing substance at the same time before major races (but at different times of year) at the appropriate times and in appropriate quantities for performance enhancement alone, as evidenced by dopers.

[Hot Flatus]

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'.

[hubner]

I think this is on the same level as a someone who hasn't failed a dope test and can say they haven't broken any rules and therefore isn't a doper when in fact they've done the following:

taken drugs that aren't prohibited, eg newly created drugs,
taken drugs that are undetectable, eg drugs now known to have been taken by certain runners,
taken drugs that allowable if you have a certain medical condition, eg for severe asthma, but in fact don't have the condition,
taken drugs but has taken measures to pass dope tests, including collusion of governing bodies.

[hubner]

I think doping has always been so common in pro cycling you have either accept it or just ignore the sport.

It seems the more closely you can identify with a rider, in nationality, language, the more a fan is willing to make an exception and say "he didn't break any rules!".

As for people saying certain riders were/are clean, I think that's more like they like to think so and so were clean.

[mattc]

(at least, for those who understand the issues)

I see what you've done there.

[Hot Flatus]

Good.

I knew it would make your brain vibrate. 

[mattc]

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?

(e.g. I'm a big fan of David Millar - but he cheated, he broke the rules, there was evidence, and  he was rightfully punished.
Of course some would say he should have had a lifetime ban and his goolies cut off, but that wasn't the rule in place at the time.

Wiggo? Froome? Nothing proven yet => no punishment. Simples. )

[Cudzoziemiec]

Surely Sky's use of TUEs is a good example of what the system was set up to allow. It's cheating in that it goes against what appears to be the spirit of the rules and what (most of) the public want, but it's fully in line with the letter of the rules and their professional application.

[Samuel D]

…but it's fully in line with the letter of the rules and their professional application.

Of course. It may even be a breach of someone’s fiduciary duty not to sail close to the wind like this. It’s professional sport.

Flatus, though, can read the guilt in Wiggins’s face. See upthread. He reminds me of my uncle, who can tell a criminal by the look in his eyes (after the fact, natch).

[Hot Flatus]

Nope.

I can see an attempt to use the media.

[Samuel D]

Though apparently not when Fancy Bears uses the media.

[DrMekon]

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'.

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.

[sojournermike]

Of course, Wiggins is currently taking the heat from Froome. Sky is, however, falling apart around them all

[Peter]

Froome can't possibly be on drugs.  Look at him - where the Hell would you put them?

[sojournermike]

Froome can't possibly be on drugs.  Look at him - where the Hell would you put them?

In the seat tube?

[Veloman]

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'?

[drgannet]

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'.

Well, it will be interesting to see whether UKAD come to the same conclusions as you...

[Hot Flatus]

I have no confidence in UKAD.

[Hot Flatus]

Though apparently not when Fancy Bears uses the media.

What does this post even mean?

"Though not" what?

First you try and misrepresent what I am saying, and back it up with some bullshit about your uncle, now you are attempting the "well they did it too" defence.

Who gives a toss what the motivation was behind the Fancy Bears? It has no bearing whatsoever on what Wiggins did. Al it did was expose what Wiggins did.

Who are you? Donald Trump?

[drgannet]

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 

[TimC]

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.

[sojournermike]

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'?

Perhaps being slightly mischievous;)

[slope]

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.

^ = ✔

[Jakob]

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.