Sky - gaming the system?

[Hot Flatus]

Do you think the Triamcinolone made a difference?

[Veloman]

Do you think the Triamcinolone made a difference?

Was it taken in an illegal manner and is there evidence to support this?

If Sky realise they can introduce something that is sanctioned then so be it.  If the appropriate authorities subsequently deem it inappropriate they will take action to ban it.  Examples exist regards equipment. Remember the aero saddles that were banned?  Aero water bottles banned:

http://www.velonews.com/2011/12/news/saddlegate-revisited_200823

In the meantime Sky will do whatever they are permitted to do to improve performance including fancy cycling kit and using warm-down routines which other teams appear to have followed.

Still waiting for Sky to be sanctioned and I assume that will happen as the proof is out there.  Or is it?

[Hot Flatus]

It seems that is one question you are desperate not to answer...

[Veloman]

It seems that is one question you are desperate not to answer...

Whether it improves performance or not is not a key question.  The key questions appears to be whether taking Triamcinolone was permitted and within the legal framework/rules covering the competition.

We all know food improves performance and the effect that a lack of energy can have on a riders performance has been dramatically demonstrated by Froome.  Porte gave him food outside the legal framework/rules and the riders were punished.  Key point is that taking food in designated zones is permissible and if taking Triamcinolone was permitted then no case to answer.  Unless you wish to consider the ethics/morality of taking Triamcinolone which opens a somewhat larger debate.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Taking that drug is only within the rules if you have an appropriate condition at that specific time that cannot be treated another way and taking the drug doesn't improve your performance. Do you think that all of those conditions were met in this case?

[Veloman]

^^^^  Not my decision and I was not involved in the process.  I'll leave it to those with that responsibility to decide.  Opinions will differ and as I have stated before, if it stinks then strip Wiggins of wins credited to him when taking something that folk may consider was unnecessary, but appears to have been legal.

[Veloman]

Some expert opinion here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-drug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/

But not sure how expert opinion is viewed.

Millar has his views suggesting it should be banned, which I assume acknowledges it is perfectly legal to take when deemed appropriate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/19/drugs-used-by-sir-bradley-wiggins-should-be-banned-says-david-mi/

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Why do you think there is a parliamentary inquiry into Sky (amongst other things) and do you have any ideas why they aren't impressed with Sky's replies to date?

[Veloman]

^^^  They may not be impressed and wish answers to be provided in a similar fashion to the Public Accounts Committee in 2012 discussing matters with Google, Starbucks and Amazon regarding the tax protocols they adopted which were legal, but not necessarily liked.  Again, questions asked, but no sanctions as they were doing nothing illegal or outside the boundaries set by the appropriate authority.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Let's stick with the subject - potential doping.

How easy is it to provide cast-iron evidence of doping if there were no records of the drug stocks held and information about the drugs dispensed by team doctors and other organisation staff has big holes? We can't even use a process of elimination to rule out drugs issued to other team members/ staff because of patient confidentiality. Are no Sky folk prepared to waive confidentiality to show how clean the team actually is? Every step of the way Sky has lied or obfuscated about what has actually happened and when evidence to the contrary has emerged, they repeat the performance until contrary evidence pops up again.

There is no point in talking about positive dope tests. That appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, for discovering high performance doping.

[Hot Flatus]

^^^  They may not be impressed and wish answers to be provided in a similar fashion to the Public Accounts Committee in 2012 discussing matters with Google, Starbucks and Amazon regarding the tax protocols they adopted which were legal, but not necessarily liked.  Again, questions asked, but no sanctions as they were doing nothing illegal or outside the boundaries set by the appropriate authority.

"May not be impressed".

Understatement of the year 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017/03/01/team-sky-british-cycling-left-reeling-questions-answer-bruising/

The chair of the committee stated that the reputation of Team Sky is "in tatters".

Try and spin that one away...

[Veloman]

Let's stick with the subject - potential doping.

How easy is it to provide cast-iron evidence of doping if there were no records of the drug stocks held or any information about the drugs dispensed were kept by team doctors and other organisation staff? There is no point in talking about positive dope tests. That appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, for discovering high performance doping.

Potential being the appropriate word.  If Sky can avoid being caught then everyone can avoid being caught and we all await for the real story behind the emerging enigma called Sagan.  Or we wait for the story behind Cavendish or the story behind Hoy, Kenny, Trott etc etc.  But until there is hard evidence then everything is supposition and folk are all tarred with the same brush.  On the basis that hard evidence is the exception, I don't think we can rely on opinion without any evidence.

[Veloman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017/03/01/team-sky-british-cycling-left-reeling-questions-answer-bruising/

The chair of the committee stated that the reputation of Team Sky is "in tatters".

Try and spin that one away...

No need to as BC have commented on circumstances and I have already opined on the failure of organisations to keep records at post #643 (14 Mar) which does not imply malice just because records were not maintained.

Sky appear to have accepted the shortcomings regarding record keeping and are responding with their riders doing the talking in terms of results.  Perhaps that is how they do 'spin'.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Hypothetically, short of either a Sky mea culpa or a cast-iron positive dope test, what would be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that Sky riders probably took dope?

I would like evidence rather than supposition or pointed fingers.  Perhaps if Thomas confessed that Sky were a dope fuelled and results obsessed organisation that operated under such secrecy and cunning that no matter who looked through the looking glass they would find no evidence.

So nothing short of a Sky confession of doping would do it?

You've already made it clear that a failed dope test or explicit confession are the only forms of evidence that would influence your opinion. So Katusha is the only pro team to have doped recently...

[Jakob]

And I assume that if Sky, Brailsford, Wiggins or anyone else for that matter have done something against the rules, illegal or outside what is permitted, they would be facing either legal or sporting sanctions.  However, while there has been much debate on ethics and morality etc, there appears to be a lack of evidence to support such action. Takes us right back to #13 of this thread.

That's because Sky is hiding behind the 'doctor/patient privilege'. It's abundantly clear that they should never have requested that TUE and that it should never have been approved. Again, why hasn't anyone asked Zorzoli why he approved the TUE? At this stage, I don't think a financial background investigation would be out of order.

[sojournermike]

Sky did not invent warm downs. In fact Sky did not invent anything.

Ah yes, I seem to remember talk of all the teams doing a warm down on the trainers after the stage that was not very obvious to all as I assume it all took place inside the team bus where they hid the trainers to prevent other folk seeing what they were doing.  Or perhaps it was Sky that actually did warm downs after each stage on the trainers in full view of the public.  Seem to recall some of the TV folk commentating on it when they first did that as it was sufficiently rare that it merited comment.

Comments of Yates in this article by Will Fotheringham , who I realise may be viewed as someone who knows very little about cycling, is interesting regarding the warm-down and post race protocol:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/23/team-sky-tour-de-france-dominance-chris-froome

Fantastical comparisons of Sky with US Postal and Banesto, with no mention of their doping. As well as having his own palmares (iirc) Fotheringham wrote of Banesto's system of doping in 2000. He does know something of cycling and made some interesting comparisons in this rather breathless article.

[sojournermike]

If you want to understand why sports scientists...you know, the people who actually do develop the techniques that result in progress...are so hacked off by Team Sky's crap then have a read of Ross Tucker:

https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/sport/2017-03-27-ross-tucker-bradley-wiggins-team-sky-and-the-science-of-marginal-gains/

Tucker appears to object to how the tweeks have been reported rather than the process itself as he states “So it was how it was framed — the context more than the concept — that was objectionable.”  Seems that Tucker is a little peeved that all the work he and others have done regarding improving performance has not been recognised and Brailsford’s marginal gains mantra has gained considerable attention.  Great example of ‘sour grapes’.  Marginal gains or sports science, call it what you want, does appear to have some benefit from my observations as I have fine-tuned what I like in my bidon to make the water more palatable and I note this a trend with other folk who ride audax.  So I can understand why some of the changes implemented could be considered as marginal, namely that to all intense and purpose no major revolution and a nuancing of the process.  Rather like sprinters wearing a skin suit during a sprint stage.

I'm not convinced that's driving Tucker here. He's well respected and has an interest in doping across sports, as well as other areas of research.

You may recall that he was one of the experts that Seb Coe described as being 'so called', before some (but not all) of the doping news in his sport emerged blinking into the light

[sojournermike]

Let's stick with the subject - potential doping.

How easy is it to provide cast-iron evidence of doping if there were no records of the drug stocks held or any information about the drugs dispensed were kept by team doctors and other organisation staff? There is no point in talking about positive dope tests. That appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, for discovering high performance doping.

Potential being the appropriate word.  If Sky can avoid being caught then everyone can avoid being caught and we all await for the real story behind the emerging enigma called Sagan.  Or we wait for the story behind Cavendish or the story behind Hoy, Kenny, Trott etc etc.  But until there is hard evidence then everything is supposition and folk are all tarred with the same brush.  On the basis that hard evidence is the exception, I don't think we can rely on opinion without any evidence.

Well, we are waiting for the stories - Froome as well;)

[Foghat]

But until there is hard evidence then everything is supposition and folk are all tarred with the same brush.  On the basis that hard evidence is the exception, I don't think we can rely on opinion without any evidence.

How much more evidence do you need?  There's plenty just in Wiggins' own writings and utterances.

He lied about taking the Triamcinolone until he had to admit it following the Fancy Bears unearthing of the truth.

In his autobiography, he wrote that he was 100% healthy and winning all his races in the lead-up to the 2012 Tour de France.  Therefore any application for a TUE cannot have been for an emergency or exceptional circumstances, which are the two principal available mandatory criteria for being granted a TUE.  Sky's application was therefore dishonest and incorrect, and as such contravened the rules.  That the TUE was granted shows Zorzoli/UCI was either duped by the dishonest application or complicit, and negligent in either case.  And of course, UCI negligence/complicity/corruption does not absolve the dishonest application.

After being caught out, Wiggins then stated that the TUE was required to level the playing field so he could compete at the highest level - he didn't say it was needed for an emergency or exceptional circumstances.  His argument was that his specialist medical advisor told him it would cure his lifelong allergy and respiratory problems, i.e. circumstances so exceptional that he'd, by his own admission, managed to remain 100% healthy throughout the entire lead-up to the Tour, and won all the races too.

So....clearly banged to rights (well, compelling evidence at least) that the Triamcinolone TUE was dishonestly applied for, inappropriately authorised and therefore obtained and administered in contravention of the rules.  Ergo, Wiggins won the 2012 Tour using Triamcinolone as a performance-enhancing drug, but under the guise of a TUE due to Sky dishonesty and UCI negligence/corruption.  Why anyone would continue to hope/believe that Wiggins and Sky are honest, genuine and correct on the TUE matter, given all this, defies logic.....especially having seen and heard Brailsford's compulsive bullshitting on Sky medical and '100% clean zero-tolerance' matters, and the shifty, bullshitting performances of Sky management in front of the select committee, and the admissions/accusations of ex-Sky riders.

[toontra]

Let's not forget that Freeman excused himself from attending the select committee at the last minute due to a "cold" (did he write his own sick-note?). 

As per usual with this story, his subsequent written evidence poses more questions than gives answers.

[citoyen]

How much more evidence do you need?  There's plenty just in Wiggins' own writings and utterances.

I've tried to give Sky the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, but I can't argue with anything you say. I just can't see any plausible excuse that would exonerate the team - or the UCI, who I'm certain must have been complicit.

Wiggins should not have been granted that TUE. Whether or not Sky "broke the rules" is an irrelevant nicety.

Is the Triamcinolone the reason he won the Tour in 2012? That I'm not so sure about - it's just one of many factors that possibly contributed to his success - but either it had no effect, in which case he needn't have taken it, or it enhanced his performance, in which case he shouldn't have taken it.

[Veloman]

No matter what the folk on YACF think or believe, no matter what others may think such as Kimmage, the fact remains that no evidence has been presented to warrant the relevant authorities to take action or sanctions against either Sky or Wiggins.  Folk may believe it stinks like a rotting fish and there are lies stacked atop of lies.  All well and good and folk are entitled to their opinion.  However, until it is proven that Wiggins and Sky, or indeed UCI, did something illegal regarding what Wiggins took, then everything is just hot air and does not change the records.

If Sky pushed the limits of a system to the absolute boundary, then so be it.  If UCI are dishonest or corrupt then every team has the option to exploit them.  If folk don't like it then consider what you can do about it other than post on YACF.  I can only assume that posting on YACF enables a vent for frustration or anger which might help folk.  Alternatively, what was done was legal and while poor protocol and practices have been identified, there is a lack of evidence to support sanctions.

Very easy to make noise about something.

[citoyen]

folk are entitled to their opinion.

Yes, and this is an internet forum, an appropriate arena for the expression and discussion of opinions.

[Veloman]

folk are entitled to their opinion.

Yes, and this is an internet forum, an appropriate arena for the expression and discussion of opinions.

Indeed.  And having a different opinion does not mean someone is the Devil, an idiot, an apologist or whatever.

32 pages and almost 800 postings of debate on whether something was appropriate or not.

[DuncanM]

It's not just about appropriateness or not.
Sky came into road racing with a bunch of people from the track saying that they were going to prove that you could win the biggest races while riding clean and pledged to be transparent and have zero tolerance for doping.

So far, they have won stuff. I don't think they have fulfilled the rest of that ambition. In my view, much of the focus on them is because of their hubris and their success - without the original mission statement (and the constant puff pieces about their brilliant management) they would be just another (successful) cycling team.