Sky - gaming the system?

[sg37409]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56400388

"Sir Bradley Wiggins wants a new inquiry into why banned testosterone was ordered in 2011 by ex-British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman."

  

I actually lol'd when I read this. 

...If it's the former, I look forward to hearing your deposition to the inquiry.   No, not this.

If it's the latter,     But, this.

I'm sorry, but I prefer to wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other...    Good for you.

[sojournermike]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/56400388

"Sir Bradley Wiggins wants a new inquiry into why banned testosterone was ordered in 2011 by ex-British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman."

  

I actually lol'd when I read this. 

Did you? Is because that's because you have inside information as to what happened, and who intended to do what, or because you've assumed you can make a judgement without that information? If it's the former, I look forward to hearing your deposition to the inquiry. If it's the latter, I'm sorry, but I prefer to wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other, assessed and weighed by those qualified to judge, and prepared to set their judgement in front of the public.

Don't get me wrong; I have no information either way and I'm in no position to judge. But I am aware how circumstantial 'evidence', when assessed by the public, is often nothing of the sort and is simply a vehicle for people's prejudice. I have no idea whether Bradley Wiggins is guilty of anything illegal, but I'm quite sure that if I was in his position, and I was not guilty of any wrongdoing, I'd want all the evidence brought out, so I don't 'LOL' at his statement.

At the end of the day none of this will make a damn bit of difference to me, but I worry that good people will be brought down simply because it's 'ok' to suggest that everyone in pro cycling is guilty by association - and those doing the assuming and declaring guilt are not at any reputational risk while they're doing their armchair quarterbacking.

As per the law, I will assume innocence until guilt is proven. And I won't claim 'I told you so' whichever way it goes.

That’s a more than fair response Tim. The problem that some of us have is that sport is littered with athletes that have never had any proof against them, but whose performances suggest that they were not clean. They protest the loudest of course. To avoid cycling heroes, I’d just refer to the nature and history of world records and times in track athletics. There are numerous examples of world record holding athletes whose times are far ahead of the bunch of known dopers that follow them in the rankings, or who beat time’s from the East German era in women’s athletics.

In terms of Sky/Ineos/British Cycling tbh it’s not so much Wiggins, Froome or Bernal as the whole organisation that is of concern. They claimed to be the most organised and disciplined team, constantly seeking and exploiting marginal gains. However, when tested they clearly couldn’t keep basic reliable records, suggest they didn’t know what the doctor was doing, didn’t realise they were employing doctors known to have a history of expertly doping athletes and, finally, were found to have had doping products delivered to their offices in significant quantities - oh, and used tue’s to allow use of powerful corticosteroids. It’s quite hard given sport’s history not to add that little lot up to the obvious conclusion.

Perhaps Wiggins thinks he was clean, or at least didn’t cheat. I don’t know. I’d love the truth to come out. It would end the doubts and speculation and if we did have a few clean winners that would be brilliant. I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.

[Hot Flatus]

The thing with Wiggins is that we know he claimed in his book never to have had any injections. Unfortunately for him Fancy Bears hacked his UCI record and it turned out that he'd had lots of them, and curiously the drug injected and the timing of the injections in relation to races matched other people's self-confessed steroid doping protocols.

So, forgive me, and pretty much the rest of cycling fandom for having a little chuckle when Wiggins appears to be concerned about truth.

Of course, in his position, whether or not the testosterone was for him, he has little choice to say anything other than what he said, but that doesn't mean his words aren't dripping with irony.

I think we all remember his reactions and attitude towards investigations when it was him who was being investigated.

[Geriatricdolan]

I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.

If not clean, one of the cleaner in his sport. He was a phenomenal talent since he was a lad, didn't come out of nowhere like some of his opponents.
Anecdotally, his body shape didn't look as pumped up by steroids like that of his opponents either.

I don't think anyone at that level can be 100% clean and maybe we should settle for 90% or something...

[TimC]

HF, of course you’re correct that Wiggins made claims that don’t stand up to even casual investigation, but I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat. And of course the rules allow (or allowed) a degree of supplementation that isn’t in any way normal. But I can’t tell if he’s telling the truth, bending it a bit, or it’s all a fabrication. I just can’t. I have to wait for due process to tell me. In the meantime, I’ll suspend any judgement at all and enjoy the racing at face value - as I did in the Armstrong years. At the end of the day, it’s the spectacle that I enjoy, not the analysis. Maybe that’s naive, but it’s an easier and far less stressful way to live!

[Hot Flatus]

It's not the doping that annoys me, actually, because pro cycling is and always has been a circus. It's the hypocrisy and the telling of lies that never needed to be told.

Sky were a joke pre-2011 season. Then they employed the now lifetime-banned Dr Leinders, who had managed Rabobanks doping programme, Team Sky then became the most successful stage race team in the world. At the same time as declaring a much publicised zero tolerance policy. Friome went from being an out of contract donkey to a Superman.

I mean, yes, a bit of suspension of disbelief is required in all pro sports, but this was just a little too much 

[TimC]

I don't let it annoy me. I can't make a difference to it, so it's either let it go or give it up. I pay for Eurosport, so I guess to some extent I'm perpetuating the current order, but that's the pact with the Devil that I make in the pursuit of entertainment! Same with F1, or rugby, or athletics. I know that at some level what I'm watching isn't real, but that's ok. I'll let the sports decide for themselves what they're prepared to tolerate and what they're not - and probably enjoy the ensuing court cases as much as the sport itself! I just don't want to give myself the pressure of trying to decide who's breaking the rules more than average.

[Davef]

It's not the doping that annoys me, actually, because pro cycling is and always has been a circus. It's the hypocrisy and the telling of lies that never needed to be told.

Sky were a joke pre-2011 season. Then they employed the now lifetime-banned Dr Leinders, who had managed Rabobanks doping programme, Team Sky then became the most successful stage race team in the world. At the same time as declaring a much publicised zero tolerance policy. Friome went from being an out of contract donkey to a Superman.

I mean, yes, a bit of suspension of disbelief is required in all pro sports, but this was just a little too much 

Froome’s W/kg did change dramatically as did his bra size

[Hot Flatus]

He was stick thin at Sky pre 2011 Vuelta.

[Davef]

He was stick thin at Sky pre 2011 Vuelta.

He was getting thinner by summer of 2010 ... but not “stick thin”. The dramatic change came when his arms were no longer strong enough to lift a pie.

[sojournermike]

I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.

If not clean, one of the cleaner in his sport. He was a phenomenal talent since he was a lad, didn't come out of nowhere like some of his opponents.
Anecdotally, his body shape didn't look as pumped up by steroids like that of his opponents either.

I don't think anyone at that level can be 100% clean and maybe we should settle for 90% or something...

These illustrate the problem. You can do the same with Radcliffe, and others.

I think trying to define 90% clean is actually more difficult than clean. Otoh, I know it’s part of the circus. Sky, like USP, were just nasty with it and that has a price attached.

[Davef]

I always tell my girls that I’d love Bolt to be clean, but the odds aren’t in his favour. Sad, but what it is.

If not clean, one of the cleaner in his sport. He was a phenomenal talent since he was a lad, didn't come out of nowhere like some of his opponents.
Anecdotally, his body shape didn't look as pumped up by steroids like that of his opponents either.

I don't think anyone at that level can be 100% clean and maybe we should settle for 90% or something...

These illustrate the problem. You can do the same with Radcliffe, and others.

I think trying to define 90% clean is actually more difficult than clean. Otoh, I know it’s part of the circus. Sky, like USP, were just nasty with it and that has a price attached.

That second list shows that it is very difficult not to get caught. The world is a big place yet you do sometimes get sports dominated by a small number of people. When there is obvious skill factor like tennis or snooker it is just accepted. There is clearly something freakishly unusual about Bolt, either his ability to run fast or his ability to not get caught taking drugs. Either ability he held for a very long time from when he decimated the field at his first U20 world champs aged 15.

[sg37409]

Dr Richard Freeman: Ex-British Cycling and Team Sky chief struck off medical register

[toontra]

He said he was "shocked" by GMC verdict

He must be the only one surprised then.  Either he's an idiot or a compulsive liar - or both.

[Hot Flatus]

I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.

Forgot to say...

Armstrong didn't (and possibly still doesn't) regard himself as a cheat, on the basis that doping was available to all, used by most, and therefore he wasn't cheating anyone.

It doesn't matter what institution you are in, whether sport, military, police or other work, there is always a culture with sometimes attitudes that are both endemic and morally corrosive. For example I know firsthand of the culture of racism that existed in the Met pre-McPherson, and maybe some of us heard about the culture of executing unarmed prisoners/non-combatants in Afghanistan by Aus SAS. Things that outside of that bubble are unconscionable.

People's moral compasses can go awry if they think immoral and illegal behaviour is acceptable within their peers.

My feeling is that many/most pro cyclists of that era operated in a parallel morality. Take Armstrong. He's not furious that he was banned. He's furious that Landis talked.

[sojournermike]

I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.

Forgot to say...

Armstrong didn't (and possibly still doesn't) regard himself as a cheat, on the basis that doping was available to all, used by most, and therefore he wasn't cheating anyone.

It doesn't matter what institution you are in, whether sport, military, police or other work, there is always a culture with sometimes attitudes that are both endemic and morally corrosive. For example I know firsthand of the culture of racism that existed in the Met pre-McPherson, and maybe some of us heard about the culture of executing unarmed prisoners/non-combatants in Afghanistan by Aus SAS.

People's moral compasses can go awry if they think immoral and illegal behaviour is acceptable within their peers.

My feeling is that many/most pro cyclists of that era operated in a parallel morality. Take Armstrong. He's not furious that he was banned. He's furious that Landis talked.

This exactly. And in a sport where up to 50% of participants admit to doping, ‘not cheating’ is an easy conclusion to draw.

I don’t actually agree that the high prevalence of caught spores at the head of the rankings demonstrates that it’s hard to avoid being caught. It can also be interpreted to reflect that performance pressure requires increasing levels of doping to compete that makes getting caught more likely at the top of the list, whereas there is a tail of non convicted dopers queuing up behind. It’s worth remembering that Carl Lewis (9.87) used PEDs but was never convicted during his career and the our very own London’s only tested positive after he’d retired...

[Hot Flatus]

Also, who gets caught?

...is it the person who always comes first, or is it the people who always lose. Whom, amongst those two groups is the wealthiest, and therefore best disposed to afford the very best doctors?

In cycling, when you think about the big winners getting busted, very often it is not through failing a dope test.

[TimC]

It's a moral mess, undoubtedly. At the base of it, as I've just remarked on the thread about Pog, we - the viewers - pay for the entertainment, and we like the best entertainers to get paid most so that they stay in the game and entertain us as much as possible. The athletes want to win, and like the idea of getting paid lots of dosh. The sponsors want the spectacle to be successful (so they in turn make lots of dosh), and need stars to fire up the audience - us. It all conspires to put pressure on the riders to use whatever methods their trainers can come up with without asking too many questions.

Individuals like Armstrong are exceptional in that they go beyond the established system and methods and start to blur the lines between puppets and puppeteers. I don't think there ever have been many like him. Are there any now? Who knows.

I have to say that for all I say I don't care and I just want to enjoy the spectacle, I do enjoy hypothetical speculation about what might be happening behind the scenes. I generally avoid names, because I simply don't have evidence beyond reported circumstantial, and I don't want to point fingers without a lot more than that. Indeed, I don't want to point fingers at all unless the playing field is tilted outrageously, or people are in danger - and I doubt I'll ever have the information to make those judgements.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think Mike makes an interesting point that he might nevertheless regard himself as ‘clean’ or at least not as a cheat.

Forgot to say...

Armstrong didn't (and possibly still doesn't) regard himself as a cheat, on the basis that doping was available to all, used by most, and therefore he wasn't cheating anyone.

It doesn't matter what institution you are in, whether sport, military, police or other work, there is always a culture with sometimes attitudes that are both endemic and morally corrosive. For example I know firsthand of the culture of racism that existed in the Met pre-McPherson, and maybe some of us heard about the culture of executing unarmed prisoners/non-combatants in Afghanistan by Aus SAS. Things that outside of that bubble are unconscionable.

People's moral compasses can go awry if they think immoral and illegal behaviour is acceptable within their peers.

My feeling is that many/most pro cyclists of that era operated in a parallel morality. Take Armstrong. He's not furious that he was banned. He's furious that Landis talked.

That's a very serious post for what is ultimately a frivolous topic (professional sport) but it's a point that's totally worth making.

[Hot Flatus]

You've met me. You know I'm a very serious person.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I didn't know it was you because you didn't have your mask on (the one in your avatar).

[αdαmsκι]

Nothing to see here.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ukad-and-british-cycling-face-questions-over-2010-doping-control-of-prominent-track-rider/

[αdαmsκι]

Worth a listen: https://play.acast.com/s/realscienceofsport/thefreemandopingaffair-thecaseagainstteamskyandbritishcycling

[Hot Flatus]

In 5 weeks time the statute of limitations kicks in and they will have got away with it.

[αdαmsκι]

I know, but it's incredible listening back to the Science in Sport podcast how much smoke there is around Sky / Ineos / BC. None of it's news to me, but still shocking here it all listed together.