Sky - gaming the system?

[Hot Flatus]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

[Jaded]

Wiggins has reputation is gone. He knows it too.

So why is he spending this week riding round a sold out London Velodrome with the whole crowd cheering when he takes a lap?

If he thinks his reputation has gone I suspect he would quietly slip out the back door and stick his fingers up to all of us. Instead he's fulfilling a commitment presumably made to the London six day some time ago and is carrying on because as far as he is concerned he's not done anything wrong.

I have seen a ticket for Saturday on sale this morning; no doubt they have read this thread and it has opened their eyes!

It's not my ticket 

[mattc]

It's just been taken anyway!

[Jakob]

Tho Wiggns did seem to unexpectedly DNS the Abu Dhabi Tour, possibly to avoid the press. One report is here: http://cyclingtips.com/2016/10/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-insist-that-wiggins-withdrawal-from-race-is-unexpected/

Because the press there might not be as friendly as the local press in London?
I still find it amazing that no one seems to know what was in that 'medical package' and had to issue and then correct a string of lies.

[Hot Flatus]

Brailsford has almost impossibly managed to out-bullshit himself on this issue.

[Ian H]

I must admit that I find this side of it almost as entertaining as the racing.

[Hot Flatus]

Yeah. Have you heard....Bradley Wiggins has got really bad asthma.

[TimC]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

For you.

I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople.  But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.

[mzjo]

It might be interesting to do a full investigation and financial audit of the UCI doctor who signed off Wiggo's TUEs.

It might. If you can fund it, and can produce substantive evidence from your investigation, then you have a case. Suspicion and accusation is not a case.

This is not like using illegal methods and drugs to produce an apparently legal result, as was commonly the case with EPO use. Everything about this was declared, open for official examination, and approved at the time. I'm no more impressed by it than Matt is, but I recognise the line between legal and illegal, and that legality - however marginally moral - is the only line that counts.

I'm sure most of us (and all professional athletes) recognise the benefits of caffeine for cycling. In some athletes, the benefits are startling. Perfectly legal - at the moment - and any team not studying and employing the benefits of caffeine are missing a trick and selling themselves short. Yes, there are medical risks with overuse, but how many of us drink too much coffee or tea (not to mention alcohol) and accept the risk? It's legal. It may not be wise, but it's legal. And, in the coffee and alcohol case, we like the effects. So, even with no financial or competitive pressure, we do it anyway.

Wasn't there an issue with Gianni Bugno having an excessive caffeine result? Sometime in the early 90's I think. I remember that at the time my daily coffee consumption would have been very close to his (estimated) "excessive" count (and the pundits didn't believe his figure credible!!)

In this story concerning Sky and BC I note that J Tiernan-Locke has said that Tramadol was freely available at one of the World's. Having taken Tramadol (in some heavy doses as well as lighter ones) I have to admit that I fail to see how it can be a PED. Effective painkiller yes but make you go faster? Never!!! This throws me into serious doubt about the validity of this whole story - too much reading of tea leaves and clutching of straws.

I am thoroughly enjoying Eurosport (France) coverage of the London 6; hope team 1 win but even if not it's all good entertainment.

[Hot Flatus]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

For you.

I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople.  But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.

Not only for me. Also for Wiggins's colleagues.

Marcel Kittel: cyclists with severe asthma should compete in Paralympics

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/marcel-kittel-cyclists-severe-asthma-paralympics?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Karla]

It might be interesting to do a full investigation and financial audit of the UCI doctor who signed off Wiggo's TUEs.

It might. If you can fund it, and can produce substantive evidence from your investigation, then you have a case. Suspicion and accusation is not a case.

This is not like using illegal methods and drugs to produce an apparently legal result, as was commonly the case with EPO use. Everything about this was declared, open for official examination, and approved at the time. I'm no more impressed by it than Matt is, but I recognise the line between legal and illegal, and that legality - however marginally moral - is the only line that counts.

I'm sure most of us (and all professional athletes) recognise the benefits of caffeine for cycling. In some athletes, the benefits are startling. Perfectly legal - at the moment - and any team not studying and employing the benefits of caffeine are missing a trick and selling themselves short. Yes, there are medical risks with overuse, but how many of us drink too much coffee or tea (not to mention alcohol) and accept the risk? It's legal. It may not be wise, but it's legal. And, in the coffee and alcohol case, we like the effects. So, even with no financial or competitive pressure, we do it anyway.

Wasn't there an issue with Gianni Bugno having an excessive caffeine result? Sometime in the early 90's I think. I remember that at the time my daily coffee consumption would have been very close to his (estimated) "excessive" count (and the pundits didn't believe his figure credible!!)

In this story concerning Sky and BC I note that J Tiernan-Locke has said that Tramadol was freely available at one of the World's. Having taken Tramadol (in some heavy doses as well as lighter ones) I have to admit that I fail to see how it can be a PED. Effective painkiller yes but make you go faster? Never!!! This throws me into serious doubt about the validity of this whole story - too much reading of tea leaves and clutching of straws.

I am thoroughly enjoying Eurosport (France) coverage of the London 6; hope team 1 win but even if not it's all good entertainment.

Caffeine was controlled at the time, but has since been taken off the list.

[Jakob]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

For you.

I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople.  But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.

You mean like Armstrong's TUE?. And why did Wiggins lie about it?
Do you really think that taking a  powerful PED just before his most famous victories deserves only a raised eyebrow and a shrug?.
More so, going straight from standard inhalers to triamcinolone? No attempt controlling it with prednisolone or similar first?.

[Jaded]

Yeah. Have you heard....Bradley Wiggins has got really bad asthma.

I read that as anathema. 

[trekker12]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

So, I'm a better class of cycling fan because I've been watching the tour since the 1980's and spent much of the 90's having to put up with lies and nonsense from the UCI and the likes of Marco Pantani, Jan Ullrich, Erik Zabel, the entire Festina team and of course Lance Armstrong, to name just a few? Was that supposed to be some kind of initiation into the real world of cycling fandom and anyone who missed out on the 'wonders' of the era and those before are not worthy enough to form their own opinion?

I don't buy this snobbery that recent converts to cycling are somehow lesser educated and not worth our acknowledgement. I don't own Sky kit, I don't particularly like the way they race but the fact it's brought a million new fans into a dying sport and reinvigorated it, to the point that such conversations about it's dark past and known bad apples are brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

As far as I'm concerned the only bad thing about this is the fact I'm finding it hard to avoid the results of major races before I've had a chance to get home to watch the highlights now it's in the popular press and radio sports bullitens.

[Hot Flatus]

I, and many others, think Sky are USPS Mk II.  What you are saying is exactly what people said about USPS.

There have been several chances for cycli g to clean up its act. Festina...then along came USPS. Puerto and Landis, and along came Sky.

Marginal gains my arse.

[Veloman]

Marginal gains my arse.

So if Sky are USPS Mk II as you suggest, then can we assume that folk like Thomas are also part of the PED culture that you seem to believe is prevalent at Sky?

[Hot Flatus]

Geraint Thomas?  ....oh no... not our G!.....proper Welsh lad.....only discovered he could climb when he hit 30 years old mind you....move along, nothing to see here.


Marginal gains. The son of the President of the UCI works for Team Sky.

How's that for a fucking marginal gain 


(P.s. Remember when Thomas scored a 6? No. Thought not)

[Cudzoziemiec]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

For you.

I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople.  But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.

Not only for me. Also for Wiggins's colleagues.

Marcel Kittel: cyclists with severe asthma should compete in Paralympics

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/marcel-kittel-cyclists-severe-asthma-paralympics?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Whereas various Paralympians would like to be allowed to compete in the mainstream Olympics or even for the whole ability/disability distinction to be abolished.

[mattc]

Do you really think that taking a  powerful PED just before his most famous victories deserves only a raised eyebrow and a shrug?.
More so, going straight from standard inhalers to triamcinolone? No attempt controlling it with prednisolone or similar first?.

The answer is: why would they do those things, if the rules don't require them to? They(Sky) want the best performance from Wiggo - they want him healthy. They want to be 100% certain that a health issue won't undermine their multi-million dollar investment for 3 Weeks In July. If there's also a "marginal" performance gain from medicine A vs medicine B, then why not? The rules allow it.

(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)

You mean like Armstrong's TUE?. And why did Wiggins lie about it?

Is there a link between Wiggo and Armstrong? IAMFI

[TimC]

Apart from Sky fans for whom cycling didn't exist prior to 2012, yes it is.

For you.

I don't really care one way or the other; I don't put anyone on a pedestal - especially sportspeople.  But if you're going to fling accusations, you need to explain why a legal process, undertaken in full view of the authorities, justifies anything over and beyond a raised eyebrow and a shrug.

You mean like Armstrong's TUE?. And why did Wiggins lie about it?
Do you really think that taking a  powerful PED just before his most famous victories deserves only a raised eyebrow and a shrug?.
More so, going straight from standard inhalers to triamcinolone? No attempt controlling it with prednisolone or similar first?.

What did he do that was illegal? Come on, tell us what the UCI and UKAD missed?

[TimC]

I, and many others, think Sky are USPS Mk II.  What you are saying is exactly what people said about USPS.

There have been several chances for cycli g to clean up its act. Festina...then along came USPS. Puerto and Landis, and along came Sky.

Marginal gains my arse.

Facts, please. Unsubstantiated accusations and implications are worthless.

You may be right - but if you give no evidence, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

[Hot Flatus]

And Lance never tested positive.

Yes, we've heard this all before.

[TimC]

No, you don't get away with that kind of lazy slander. There was evidence against Armstrong, and eventually it came out. The suspicions about him and his team were strong and well-founded, and the culture of the time allowed non-credible medical statistics to be regarded as not unusual, even though everyone knew how they were achieved. And the methods by which they were achieved were illegal.

What is there about the Wiggins situation that was illegal? Explain.

[Karla]

<snip>

<snip>

(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)

I think this is the key distinction between the sides of this thread.

[Cudzoziemiec]

<snip>

<snip>

(I do understand that it's outside your personal ethics code - and I can understand why - but the rules aren't based on that.)

I think this is the key distinction between the sides of this thread.

Yes. Rules v ethics.