Author Topic: Sky - gaming the system?  (Read 96523 times)

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2016, 07:23:23 pm »
Except that one of Armitstead's missed tests was accepted as having been missed by the UCI official, not her: she was available & where she was supposed to be. And one of the other two was a filing error not a true missed test. So she missed two (one on a technicality).

As the media I used to work with used to say "never let fact get in the way of a good story!" And don't forget the UCI are all corrupt etc etc etc ......

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2016, 07:25:32 pm »
I can't understand why there is such reluctance to answer a very simple question.

And you suggest others would be well suited to a career in politics.

What question do you want answering?

I'm quite happy to answer questions on the topic. Others appear to skirt around the issue and avoid stating whether they believe Wiggins should be stripped of title.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2016, 07:33:57 pm »
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?

Just a few decades?   

Personally, I can't see any professional sport ever being 'clean'.  It's a pipedream.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2016, 07:35:58 pm »
I suspect more information will come out over time about how some Sky riders have got unexpected improvements in performance. After that, questions about whether Wiggo should keep his TdF would become much easier to answer.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2016, 07:37:42 pm »
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?

Just a few decades?   

Personally, I can't see any professional sport ever being 'clean'.  It's a pipedream.

I've not seen anything that would suggest Lemond's TdF wins weren't clean. I can't say that about the winners since then.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2016, 07:46:40 pm »
There is a fair bit of the old Pavlovian dogmatic response to Rule Britannia, going on here.

There are none so blind as those that will not see...

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2016, 07:54:57 pm »
Not at all. You assume I am British, assume I have loyalty to Britain, Sky or Wiggins, and assume I will respond in a particular way.

Surprising that a simple question will be avoided.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2016, 08:10:19 pm »
Of course Wiggins shouldn't relinquish his Tour de France title, as he hasn't done anything outside of the rules.  Still dodgy, but within the rules.

Whereas Armstrong did lots outside of the rules but I, personally, don't think he should relinquish his titles either.  The UCI obviously don't know what to do with those years either, hence the strikethrough in the official records.

If it turns out that Wiggins has done more than apply the rules to his advantage then his tour title should have the same status as Armstrong's.

However, if Sky have merely pushed the rules right up to the (blue) line then they have not done anything untoward.  We also need to see the TUEs of riders on other teams before casting too many aspersions.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2016, 08:50:32 pm »
I suspect more information will come out over time about how some Sky riders have got unexpected improvements in performance. After that, questions about whether Wiggo should keep his TdF would become much easier to answer.

What, you mean like Wiggo's big improvement when he rode for Garmin? 

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2016, 09:12:18 pm »
I thought that Sky were keen on the aggregation of marginal gains. I'd have been surprised if they didn't push the rules as far as they would go.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2016, 09:14:12 pm »
Not at all. You assume I am British, assume I have loyalty to Britain, Sky or Wiggins, and assume I will respond in a particular way.

Surprising that a simple question will be avoided.

It's a pretty fair bet

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2016, 09:20:22 pm »
So how money do you wish to bet?

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2016, 09:45:14 pm »
So you are claiming you aren't British and have no allegiance to Britain.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2016, 09:47:28 pm »
How much you want to bet?

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2016, 09:52:52 pm »
I suspect more information will come out over time about how some Sky riders have got unexpected improvements in performance. After that, questions about whether Wiggo should keep his TdF would become much easier to answer.

What, you mean like Wiggo's big improvement when he rode for Garmin? 

Coupled with leaving the track and pushing the same watts but with 10kg less? 

"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2016, 09:59:38 pm »
How much you want to bet?

Ever sworn allegiance to the Queen?

Thought so.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2016, 10:04:55 pm »
It seems likely that there's a selection process at work here — if asthmatic cyclists are the only ones who can legitimately use steroids, then we can expect to find a lot of asthmatic cyclists at the elite end of the sport. This could well have been an unconscious process rather than a deliberate strategy, but who knows? There are a lot of people in the sport who are cynical enough to have spotted the opportunity.

(As an asthmatic cyclist myself, I sympathize, but since I don't race I can just keep the intensity low enough to avoid having to cough up buckets of mucus out of my lungs after every ride.)


Diagnosed asthma is very significantly over represented in the most successful populations of elite sportspeople - I use that phrase rather than asthmatics, although clearly some are the latter also. That is not consistent with the impact of asthma on respiratory capability and it's an important question to ask whether the drugs are leveling the playing field above the norm for both those with childhood induced asthma and those with later onset exercise induced/identified asthma.

One question I think is worth pondering is whether it is reasonable to allow someone to use drug treatment to increase their athletic potential beyond the natural genetic limitations they face - this may be asthma, or just wanting more respiratory capacity and less fatigue/faster recovery, but it might also apply to the lady with naturally low haematocrit and her EPO TUE or the low testosterone 'sufferer' and his testosterone TUE etc etc. What about the intersex athletes competing in the female classes?

The public media image is that sport is about natural talent and hard work. Using drugs to 'level the playing field' does not enter into that equation. Sorry, but I'm no world champion either. Genetics matter.

Personally, I've become jaundiced in my view of Team Sky, British Cycling and British Sport in general. The fawning nationalism of the Olympics did nothing to dispel my doubts and cynicism. Wiggin's TUE does nothing to make me feel more comfortable, but looks very confirmatory. Asking the Times to criticise Team Sky seems a long stretch, given its ownership, and I wonder whether they are hanging Wiggins out to dry, while trying to protect Sky, British Cycling and the rest. Maybe, they'll upset Wiggins enough for him to tell a whole lot more.


I'm sure LW&B can add something of greater value and real knowledge to this.

Mike


Edited to add - read up on Alberto Salazar and the Nike Oregon Project for some background in a non-cycling field.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2016, 10:07:20 pm »
See .......... etc

I.ve read Miller's comments and note the medication is available to all riders via a TUE if required and neither Wiggins or Sky broke any rules and WADA did not express any concern.

Of course, there will always be those who do not believe that man landed on the moon or such like and conspiracy theory will abound.

Do you think Wiggins should relinquish his TdF title?

I find your faith in sporting governing bodies rather quaint.
Equally, I don't doubt that you hold all those conspiracy theorists that doubted Lance Armstrong, in equal contempt.

Of course, there will always be those who have a Pavlovian response to a British flag.


Indeed, it took one Lord Coe to get a grip on doping in athletics, after his role at FIFA of course

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2016, 10:09:41 pm »
What makes you think I should answer every question you pose? Especially when phrased in such a patronising manner.

I think as far as the concept of clean sport is concerned, all GT winners should relinquish their titles. That doesn't mean that I don't watch the races....but I have the background knowledge to know that what I am watching is a circus.

Think of pro cycling sport as akin to WWE Wrestling, and you'll be about there.

Corrected for you

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2016, 10:12:58 pm »
It seems likely that there's a selection process at work here — if asthmatic cyclists are the only ones who can legitimately use steroids, then we can expect to find a lot of asthmatic cyclists at the elite end of the sport. This could well have been an unconscious process rather than a deliberate strategy, but who knows? There are a lot of people in the sport who are cynical enough to have spotted the opportunity.

(As an asthmatic cyclist myself, I sympathize, but since I don't race I can just keep the intensity low enough to avoid having to cough up buckets of mucus out of my lungs after every ride.)


Diagnosed asthma is very significantly over represented in the most successful populations of elite sportspeople - I use that phrase rather than asthmatics, although clearly some are the latter also. That is not consistent with the impact of asthma on respiratory capability and it's an important question to ask whether the drugs are leveling the playing field above the norm for both those with childhood induced asthma and those with later onset exercise induced/identified asthma.

One question I think is worth pondering is whether it is reasonable to allow someone to use drug treatment to increase their athletic potential beyond the natural genetic limitations they face - this may be asthma, or just wanting more respiratory capacity and less fatigue/faster recovery, but it might also apply to the lady with naturally low haematocrit and her EPO TUE or the low testosterone 'sufferer' and his testosterone TUE etc etc. What about the intersex athletes competing in the female classes?

The public media image is that sport is about natural talent and hard work. Using drugs to 'level the playing field' does not enter into that equation. Sorry, but I'm no world champion either. Genetics matter.

Personally, I've become jaundiced in my view of Team Sky, British Cycling and British Sport in general. The fawning nationalism of the Olympics did nothing to dispel my doubts and cynicism. Wiggin's TUE does nothing to make me feel more comfortable, but looks very confirmatory. Asking the Times to criticise Team Sky seems a long stretch, given its ownership, and I wonder whether they are hanging Wiggins out to dry, while trying to protect Sky, British Cycling and the rest. Maybe, they'll upset Wiggins enough for him to tell a whole lot more.


I'm sure LW&B can add something of greater value and real knowledge to this.

Mike


Edited to add - read up on Alberto Salazar and the Nike Oregon Project for some background in a non-cycling field.

A very good post.

I share your view that Wiggins is being thrown under the bus. Plus ca change...

He's old news and expendable. Squeaky clean Froome is where it's at now.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2016, 10:15:01 pm »
Question is simple. If folk believe what Wiggins did was cheating, then do they believe he should be stripped of his title?

Fatuous, facile or whatever you want to say, the fact remains there seems little appetite to answer a simple question regarding the use of what some consider to be a PED rather than medication.

I can't understand why there is such reluctance to answer a very simple question.


Actually, we don't know if he cheated, even though we all have our views. The key question is did he need that particular performance enhancing treatment for his asthma at that time and was that the most appropriate treatment (i.e. would no other non-PED have worked). A significant number of medics have stated that a case of asthma needing Triamcinlone injected IM or IA is not consistent with going on to win a grand tour or the precursor events in 2012.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2016, 10:15:36 pm »
Don't have to be British to do that. Queen is Monarch of countries other than this fair isle and she welcomes folk from those countries to serve her.

I just wish folk would not make insinuations about others without being prepared to give their opinion.

I believe Wiggins was within the rules and as my earlier posts suggests he had agreement of both UCI and WADA. Some folk will conjure conspiracy theories and make disparaging comments. Personally, I don't believe he should be stripped of his title. Others are not willing to comment or say whether he should or should not be stripped. The morality or ethics can be discussed, but playing within the rules is allowed and he has stayed within the rules.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2016, 10:18:06 pm »
With professional cycling in the past few decades, it has been more accurate to assume doped, unless shown otherwise, for 'surprisingly good performances'. When do you think we should swap that approach back to 'innocent unless proven guilty'?

Just a few decades?   

Personally, I can't see any professional sport ever being 'clean'.  It's a pipedream.

I've not seen anything that would suggest Lemond's TdF wins weren't clean. I can't say that about the winners since then.

Last win in 1990, then Mig Indurain in an Armstrong like 5 year dominance, right at the heart of the epo era...

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2016, 10:22:19 pm »
The 'key question' is was he allowed to do what he did?  Answer is yes and agreed by UCI and WADA.

So you either accept it as nothing wrong was done, or you take the stance that UCI and WADA are corrupt and they favoured a particular rider. I take the former.

As for the future then perhaps TUEs need to be looked at and I agree it might rule some folk out. But until changes take place, then Wiggins and Sky did not break any rules.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2016, 10:25:27 pm »
So taking heavy-duty steroids for performance-enhancement purposes is fine, as long as you happen to be diagnosed with asthma?
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...