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.
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!
1. I'm actually not 'anti-Wiggo', but I have grave concerns about Team Sky and British Cycling, probably because they claim to be cleaner than the competition. Astana don't really concern me, nor Tinkoff-Saxo when they were in action - they never gave the sense of being 'clean'
2. I don't agree that Sky 'exploited a loophole'. Given the nature of the drug prescribed and the situations in which it would usually be used, plus the risks involved, it seems hard to believe that it should be given as a preventative or to someone who is fit to race. Therefore, it falls outside the TUE requirements at the time. Further, if given as a preventative and the condition doesn't materialise, it will be performance enhancing.
All this may die down, like the Nike Oregon Project allegations, but something is seriously amiss - even if only the level of hypocrisy - and it seems mistaken to me, not to admit it.
My comment about Froome was really more focused on Sky, and was also mischievous. However, he had TUEs for Prednisolone, which he has previously acknowledged. What I also find difficult to understand is how he gets down to 4% body fat (as quoted by Dave Brailsford) without losing power in the process.
LWAB is probably the best person to comment on this, and any motor drive that may or may not be doing the rounds.
Mike
