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.
EXACTLY!
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
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.
Same-same. If you game the system
within the rules at the time, & win, you should keep any medals you won. If it's decided that those rules need to be changed to stop what you did, then new standards apply as soon as the changes take effect - not retrospectively.
Records (world, national, etc.) might need some adjustment, e.g. a classification into pre- & post- drug ban records, but definitely not the medals.
If it turns out that something was done that was only accepted as being within the rules because of a twisted, perhaps corrupt, interpretation & application of a rule (& I can see why that is suspected in this case), then perhaps there might be grounds for retrospective redistribution of awards - but only if the dubious interpretation had skewed benefits. If everyone took advantage of it, then despite the nasty taste it leaves, let wins stand.
