Sky - gaming the system?

[Jakob]

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).

[slope]

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).

Should is a very silly word?

[Hot Flatus]

It's very clear that Team Sky abused the TUE system in order to circumvent anti-doping regulations whilst using a PED.

There is also an allegation that Sky committed a doping violation by administering the very same PED without a TUE. This is alleged to have been carried out at the end of the Dauphiné...which is why we now have a convoluted series of
constantly revised details concerning the delivery and administration of a substance.

Here is a rather amusing explanation of the situation:

[Jakob]

Was Wiggins tested after Dauphine? You'd think it would show up there.

[Hot Flatus]

The mystery substance was administered in the team bus, after the race. Dope testing would have been soon after Wiggins had crossed the line. Nothing to show up.

Administer substance....leave for pre-Tour training camp.

Problem with the Fluimucil story is that Cope had begun his role and collecting it 4 days previously. Therefore the need for it would have been recognised four days previously, whilst he was racing and winning the Dauphiné.  And yet it was only delivered after the race. So its use would only have been to help with the training camp.

A decongestant? ( Contraindicated against asthma  ). Four days and many hundreds of pounds to deliver, when a 2 hour drive to Geneva could have sourced it. 

As the outgoing head of UKAD remarked, and the lead MPS of the DCMS said...."extraordinary".

They don't buy it.

[αdαmsκι]

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.

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."

So much for the no-needles policy. And this is Sky who are whiter than white.

[sojournermike]

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.

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."

So much for the no-needles policy. And this is Sky who are whiter than white.

His vitamins included (L-)Carnitine - banned for infusion above certain doses. Salazar and Farahare under suspicion currently

[David Martin]

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.

[Hot Flatus]

The problem for Sky is that their reputation is "in tatters" (Damien Collins Mp, DCMS), and the two top people at UKAD have given a pretty damning assessment of Team Sky. Wiggins has been caught lying, and Brailsford has been caught attempting to lie several times after failing to bribe a journalist to bury the 'package' story. On top of which, several of the people called to give evidence at the DCMS (Cole and Sutton) gave a performance that convinced nobody.

Team Sky have been exposed as lying hypocrites, who claimed to be the cleanest team ever, but were abusing a medical protocol in order to dope to win races. Therefore anything and everything that emerges will be viewed with suspicion, and any statement from Team Sky is quite rightly not going to be taken at face value.  David's assessment of the case of this young rider is deliberately generous. David is not asking himself why it is that in a team with such a much vaunted ZTP, openness and transparency, and anti-doping culture running through every fibre of the team  that this rider even considered breaking the no-needle rule.

Of course, the accusation of Sky doing a 'cover up' has come from the rider himself, but David will have it that we should accept the words of Team Sky over anybody else. If I didn't think that David's arguments on this thread were in bad faith I'd be wondering if he was suffering from a nasty case of cognitive dissonance.


P.s. forgot to mention cleenteem  Sky handing out Tramadol like smarties

[citoyen]

What about the line that the team doctor blindly accepted his story that he didn't inhale use the needles? (A story that the rider himself denies.)

Ah hae ma doots.

[Hot Flatus]

Rider alleges cover up. Team says no.

Naturally we should accept what the team says without question. 

[LEE]

I can only hope that the Murdochs are somehow involved in this, maybe through pressure to succeed for the benefit of the SKY brand. 

The Murdoch association with team SKY has never sat well with me (I certainly wouldn't ever contemplate wearing the evil logo). I hope the SKY brand is tarnished.

However Brailsford set his stall out.  "No tolerance", "100% clean".   
They would have got massive respect if Josh Edmondson had been kicked off the team, just for having needles in his room. 
They could have (rightly) been proud to demonstrate a lack of tolerance for a relatively minor offence.


But they didn't.  Ah well.  Reputations are slow to build and quick to destroy.

Apocryphal tale about reputations:

I approached a sad-looking man looking out to sea. "What's your name?" I asked.

"Simon", he replied. "I build 200 fishing boats for the village, but do they call me Simon the Boat Builder?  No.  I build 200 houses for these people but do they call me Simon the House builder? No.  I save 5 children from drowning but do they call me Simon the Child Saver? No".

He paused for a moment before turning to me.

"I Shagged ONE fucking Sheep!!!"

[David Martin]

What about the line that the team doctor blindly accepted his story that he didn't inhale use 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.

[LEE]

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.

I would agree except it was Team SKY who started the whole, "We do everything right"  thing.

If the rider can't deal with the intense pressures of pro cycling then the right thing to do would have been to refer him for treatment/therapy after dropping him from the team.

Their PR lately has been terrible.  They say they have nothing to hide and yet they try to hide things.  Nobody would have an issue if they'd come clean about TUEs..etc.

I honestly think this is how Lance/Cycling ended up where he/it did, incrementally stepping over a line by a fraction until, one day, you find yourself miles over the line.

Wiggo's team-mates will obviously start thinking, "Well if Brad can load up on TUEs just before the start of a TT then I don't see what's wrong with innocent Vitamin injections".

[Hot Flatus]

Yep. Team Sky's lack of credibility is their fault.  It's what happens when you lie, get caught out, and try and lie again...only to be caught out again.

[sg37409]

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.

Pretty much agree with this. They could have / perhaps should have made a big deal of chucking him out.

If anything it reinforces the status of the team.

Don't understand this: Its another -ve story for sky, how can it reinforce the "status" of the team ?

[sojournermike]

What about the line that the team doctor blindly accepted his story that he didn't inhale use 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.

Whilst I understand your point, I think that Sky is in very deep muck of its own creation. Even if we give Josh Edmondson and Sky's response the benefit of the doubt in this case, their subsequent media communication when they let him go was not consistent with the story that they were concerned about his mental fragility:

Rod Ellingworth, performance manager at Team Sky, explained that Edmondon’s disorganization, lack of professionalism and poor communication was behind his release from the squad.

Again, could be read as self serving, when silence would have been fine.

The real issues go far beyond one junior pro trying to improve his position by injecting vitamins and L-Carnitine

[Hot Flatus]

Thing is, you cannot give both Josh's and Sky's statements the benefit of the doubt because they are conflicting.
No-needle violations are supposed to be reported within 24 hours.
Sky didn't submit any report.
Now that the story is out Sky are saying that they didn't report it because there was nothing to report-the rider didn't admit to injecting.
And yet this is precisely what the rider is admitting. He said he told them he had injected.
So, to whom do we give the benefit of the doubt, because up to this point we are being asked to give it to Team Sky at every turn of their doping story.

By the way, David has tried to blithely wave this away as a potential breach of 'policy', rather than breach of a rule.

And yet breaching this 'policy' can ultimately lead to a lifetime ban. Josh faced a potential 6 month ban.

[citoyen]

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.

If I took what Steve Peters said at face value, I might think there's some sense in the approach. But I have two problems with his statement...

1. Rider on top pro team is found in possession of needles, team doctor asks if he used them, he says no. If you were that team doctor, would you just take the rider's word for it? Would you expect the public to believe that's as far as it went?

2. Edmondson says he did admit to using the needles, in direct contradiction to the team doctor's statement. Who do you believe? Why is Edmondson coming out with this now? What axe does he have to grind?

There are lots of questions that remain unanswered and I'm not all that interested in a witch hunt, but in light of other recent stories about lack of pastoral care of Team Sky riders, I know which way my sympathies are leaning on this one.

[Veloman]

Steve Peters is a much respected clinical psychiatrist who has considerable experience in dealing with both behavioural challenges and sport.  Josh Edmondson was a cyclist who did not make the grade.  Who do I believe?  Hmmmmm, tough one that.  Interesting article to read with interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39293763


Article also states:

Team Sky say they took legal advice at the time of the incident and say that, although Edmondson had been in breach of team rules by possessing the equipment, they were under no obligation to report the case to the authorities.

And:

Asked whether Team Sky should have handled the case differently, Dr Peters said: "We could have reported it. We could have made a different decision. We'll never know in hindsight. 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. I stand by my decision.

If I was going to consider the comments of Peters, or the comments of postings on YACF, I think I would go with the clinical psychiatrist as offering a better analysis of the situation.  As for Edmondson, no doubt he is reflecting on his current situation and I seem to recall he was fairly quite during the JTL affair when I assume that would have been the appropriate time to speak about such matters (although I believe Edmondson was still on the books of NTFO at the time and perhaps that explains his absence from the debate).  Edmondson could not have timed his comments better if he was seeking to damage a former employer who released him as he was simply out of his depth.  What do I read into that?  Hmmmmm!  Again, Sky do not appear to have violated any regulations or laws and while aspects of care and appropriateness will ensue, Peters seems to have fulfilled his clinical duty and Sky do not appear to have acted in an illegal matter.

[Hot Flatus]

(Reply edited by me due to factual inaccuracy)

I think you should watch the video you linked to. Edmundson comes across as thoughtful and articulate. You infer that his motivation is bitterness and a desire to exact revenge upon Sky, and yet he barely mentions Sky, and above all he does not seek to blame them for his situation...so I think your characterisation of him is inaccurate and you would do well to reconsider your verdict as to his lack of trustworthiness. 

It's quite striking that he does not take the opportunity this exposure brings to damage Sky, his motivation seems to be to give a salutary message to others, particularly regarding Tramadol use. His Tramadol use was independent and without the knowledge of the team, so another example where he is not trying to blame others.

This fits in with his attitude at the time of his release from Sky. Here's an excerpt from an interview in 2015:

"Sky released Edmondson at the end of his two-year neo-professional contract last season with coach Rod Ellingworth reportedly critical of his work ethic.

“It was good most of the time but then certain things weren’t quite right for me. It was just a bit of a clash,” Edmondson told Cycling Weekly before the start of today’s 2.1km prologue, that Will Clarke (Drapac) won in two minutes and 35.53 seconds.

“They’re very, very organised, like, Rod is the most organised guy in the world. He’s really good at his job and I’m just useless most of the time. I’d be off in my own little world and it just didn’t really work.”

....does this sound like a bitter liar, or somebody blaming himself for his own failure?


Quoted from: http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/josh-edmondson-prove-himself-herald-sun-tour-155731#3IqpPTbGJwRipqYg.99

[Veloman]

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.

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.

  My bold

Or from the report:

Edmondson also told the BBC he had severe depression after independently using controversial painkiller Tramadol.

I don't think Edmondson is saying Sky gave him Tramadol and it was given to him during a race by the race doctor.  Edmondson appears to have used Tramadol of his own volition:

He independently took powerful opioid Tramadol during the 2013 Tour of Britain. Team Sky say this was given to him without their knowledge by the race doctor, rather than their own team doctor.

I don't suppose reading the report is of any use when you have a closed mind regarding Sky.

I did watch the interview with Edmondson and also the one with Peters.  I would be interested to hear what Peters, the clinical psychiatrist, has to say about the interview based on the numerous interviews he has done with folk as part of his professional work.  However, Peters will not be commenting on the interview as that would not be appropriate from a professional stance.  Again, who would I believe?  Hmmmm, tough one when Edmondson admitted he did not leave the house for 2 months after leaving Sky due to depression.  Also like the bit at 5'35" where he states he is not trying to pass the buck and it was something he was doing.  But he did not go and inform anyone of what he was doing which I assume means it was not sanctioned by anyone other than himself.

[Hot Flatus]

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. 

Again, this counters your assertion that Edmundson is motivated by revenge. There doesn't seem to be much of a hint about it. We don't need Peters words about Edmundson's mental state as Edmundson is quite open about it. Edmundson is going out of his way to highlight his own mistakes...but he is issuing a correction of Sky's account.

You might want to read this report of Dr Peters words on the matter and see if you can spot the glaring self-contradiction:

"However, the BBC says that the incident was not reported by Team Sky, because Edmondson told Peters he had not used the paraphernalia found in his room.

Peters said: “He fell apart at the seams quite dramatically. A number of things I asked him during that interview really alarmed me.”

Peters: "The welfare of the athlete was number one"

"I was now in a position where I can say the welfare of the athlete was number one,” added Peters, who spoke of how Edmondson had told him that he hadn’t injected himself with the vitamins because he didn’t know how to.

"This didn't quite ring true to me,” said Peters, who suspects that Edmondson may have been ill at the time. “I felt this is very odd from what I've experienced in the past when I've been involved with anti-doping issues. So I said to the team: 'I want to stop here’.”

Team Sky, who sought legal advice on the issue, did not report it to the relevant authorities, a decision Peters still supports.

“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.

[Veloman]

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!

..... We don't need Peters words about Edmundson's mental state as Edmundson is quite open about it.

I was referring to the recent interview between Edmondson and Roan.  No doubt Peters will have watched that and drawn his own view on the current state of mind or motivation regarding Edmondson's timing and willingness to speak on such matters.

Team Sky, who sought legal advice on the issue, did not report it to the relevant authorities, a decision Peters still supports.

“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.

My bolds

Professional view of Peters or that of Flatus.  Hmmmmm, tough one that!

[Hot Flatus]

You aren't getting it are you.

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.