This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What do folks make of it all? It appears that the 'package' contained a drug for Wiggins that's contraindicated for asthmatics, which is odd.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Very suspicious. I don't see why the UCI or WADA or someone isn't interested, it seems mad to let a team boss investigate his own team for doping!
Still if anti dope authorities want a proper haul then a quick poke around at Astana might be time better spent.
Very suspicious. I don't see why the UCI or WADA or someone isn't interested, it seems mad to let a team boss investigate his own team for doping!
Still if anti dope authorities want a proper haul then a quick poke around at Astana might be time better spent.
Post edited at 18:07
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
It also warns: "Asthmatics under treatment with Mucomyst should be watched carefully", and if the drug causes problems most times they can be relieved by the use of a bronchodilator.
It also warns: "Asthmatics under treatment with Mucomyst should be watched carefully", and if the drug causes problems most times they can be relieved by the use of a bronchodilator.
5
2
In reply to Henry Iddon:
I didn't see any of it to judge them as witnesses. I do struggle to understand why the contents of the package couldn't be made known weeks ago.
I didn't see any of it to judge them as witnesses. I do struggle to understand why the contents of the package couldn't be made known weeks ago.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
On the one hand you have the basic principle that someone's medical history is private. It's between the doctor and the rider, and all the team needs to know is that it doesn't contravene the rules. In this instance the rider has left the team, so there is a further reason why it would be unethical to reveal details.
On the other hand this story doesn't ring true - why ask someone to travel 500 miles with a package that merely contains something that could have been bought for 8 euros in a chemist anywhere in France ?
On the one hand you have the basic principle that someone's medical history is private. It's between the doctor and the rider, and all the team needs to know is that it doesn't contravene the rules. In this instance the rider has left the team, so there is a further reason why it would be unethical to reveal details.
On the other hand this story doesn't ring true - why ask someone to travel 500 miles with a package that merely contains something that could have been bought for 8 euros in a chemist anywhere in France ?
In reply to Henry Iddon:
So where does that leave Wiggins ?
> It was a joke. Brailsford is a crook and Sutton is an ex doper.
So where does that leave Wiggins ?
In reply to lummox:
More to the point - and British Cycling. Wiggins has lost credibility with me as a road cyclist and TdF winner, but I really hope Froome's achievements and those of BC aren't diminished.
> and the rest of Team Sky ?
More to the point - and British Cycling. Wiggins has lost credibility with me as a road cyclist and TdF winner, but I really hope Froome's achievements and those of BC aren't diminished.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Although some commentator said it was just the sort of thing they would expect a pro team to do! but I agree the whole affair does seem a bit odd.
> On the other hand this story doesn't ring true - why ask someone to travel 500 miles with a package that merely contains something that could have been bought for 8 euros in a chemist anywhere in France ?
Although some commentator said it was just the sort of thing they would expect a pro team to do! but I agree the whole affair does seem a bit odd.
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I think that was Hutchinson (who has been pretty pro-Wiggins over the TUEs). Sky said it wasn't a special journey. I think the bigger question is why, if it was for Wiggins, who is asthmatic, they were using a drug contraindicated for asthmatics.
> Although some commentator said it was just the sort of thing they would expect a pro team to do! but I agree the whole affair does seem a bit odd.
I think that was Hutchinson (who has been pretty pro-Wiggins over the TUEs). Sky said it wasn't a special journey. I think the bigger question is why, if it was for Wiggins, who is asthmatic, they were using a drug contraindicated for asthmatics.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Which is absolutely fine, but then why not just state that weeks ago, instead of letting the media whip up a cloak and dagger conspiracy about it. The cynic in me wonders whether it has taken that long to get the story straight and decide what was in the package.
Because although the active ingredient might be the same, the overall recipe might be different and contain ingredients the user might be allergic to, have different side effects or, in the case of a pro athlete, be on the banned list - by bringing the drug from home from a known supplier, they are minimizing that risk.
> On the one hand you have the basic principle that someone's medical history is private. It's between the doctor and the rider, and all the team needs to know is that it doesn't contravene the rules. In this instance the rider has left the team, so there is a further reason why it would be unethical to reveal details.
Which is absolutely fine, but then why not just state that weeks ago, instead of letting the media whip up a cloak and dagger conspiracy about it. The cynic in me wonders whether it has taken that long to get the story straight and decide what was in the package.
> On the other hand this story doesn't ring true - why ask someone to travel 500 miles with a package that merely contains something that could have been bought for 8 euros in a chemist anywhere in France ?
Because although the active ingredient might be the same, the overall recipe might be different and contain ingredients the user might be allergic to, have different side effects or, in the case of a pro athlete, be on the banned list - by bringing the drug from home from a known supplier, they are minimizing that risk.
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
>
they didn`t , he was going anyway . ever heard of alain baxter ?
>
> On the other hand this story doesn't ring true - why ask someone to travel 500 miles with a package that merely contains something that could have been bought for 8 euros in a chemist anywhere in France ?
they didn`t , he was going anyway . ever heard of alain baxter ?
3
In reply to LastBoyScout:
I would be sceptical if I was investigating it. I don't know what powersUKAD have to investigate, and what they were told and when, but if it took several weeks for them to be told what it was I'd be suspicious
I would be sceptical if I was investigating it. I don't know what powersUKAD have to investigate, and what they were told and when, but if it took several weeks for them to be told what it was I'd be suspicious
In reply to tim000:
Good point re Baxter and I hadn't considered that. But then again, nobody at the hearing said that either - merely that it was standard practice to use in-house supplies. And it's not unusual for a team as rich as Sky to be sending people on errands all over the place.
But "he was going anyway" - is that the current story ? I know the Emma Pooley story was quickly dropped but I'm not sure where we are up to. Was he a team sky employee or BC ? Who paid for the flight ? Is it normal to contravene flight/travel regulations by giving someone packages and not telling them what they contain ?
But why has the Commons select committee got involved in this ? It seems a bit like dragging Wenger or Mourinho in and demanding to know why a player dived ? It's up to UKAD/WADA to determine if Sky broke the rules.
The MPs should stick to the issue of whether a publicly funded org - BC - was acting in discriminatory manner. So if someone who should have been supporting female riders like Pooley was actually running errands for Team sky, then regardless of what was in the package, that was wrong. And given that Team sky benefits from it's links with BC, isn't it time it set up a woman's team ?
Good point re Baxter and I hadn't considered that. But then again, nobody at the hearing said that either - merely that it was standard practice to use in-house supplies. And it's not unusual for a team as rich as Sky to be sending people on errands all over the place.
But "he was going anyway" - is that the current story ? I know the Emma Pooley story was quickly dropped but I'm not sure where we are up to. Was he a team sky employee or BC ? Who paid for the flight ? Is it normal to contravene flight/travel regulations by giving someone packages and not telling them what they contain ?
But why has the Commons select committee got involved in this ? It seems a bit like dragging Wenger or Mourinho in and demanding to know why a player dived ? It's up to UKAD/WADA to determine if Sky broke the rules.
The MPs should stick to the issue of whether a publicly funded org - BC - was acting in discriminatory manner. So if someone who should have been supporting female riders like Pooley was actually running errands for Team sky, then regardless of what was in the package, that was wrong. And given that Team sky benefits from it's links with BC, isn't it time it set up a woman's team ?
3
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
It definitely seems odd/suspicious.
Fails the "never mind the precise legality how would it look on tomorrows front page?" test which given Team Sky approach in the past is something I would have thought they would have been very wary off.
It definitely seems odd/suspicious.
Fails the "never mind the precise legality how would it look on tomorrows front page?" test which given Team Sky approach in the past is something I would have thought they would have been very wary off.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I don't know why the Select C'ttee are involved tbh.
There are certainly lots of unanswered questions.
I don't know why the Select C'ttee are involved tbh.
There are certainly lots of unanswered questions.
In reply to GrahamD:
Well he won the TdF without breaking any rules - so in that sense it makes no difference.
There are several issues at stake here:
Is Wiggins a doper - He didn't break any rules so no.
Is Froome a doper - doubtful - but again he will have benefited from Team Sky's dubious practices.
Have Team Sky broke any rules - probably not.
Do the rules on TUEs need tightening - yes
Have Team Sky bent the rules to their advantage - more than likely, as do many professionals (across all industries). In sport look at F1 - they go right up to the limit and most seasons some rule infringement causes a fuss.
Have Team Sky bent the rules beyond what is morally justifiable - probably yes.
Have Team Sky been made to look silly after stating they are ' whiter than white' and racing clean with high morals - yes
Is Brailsford bothered - no - he treats riders as commodities to massage his ego and he's now very wealthy.
Is the present leadership of British Cycling inept and rudderless - yes.
> So where does that leave Wiggins ?
Well he won the TdF without breaking any rules - so in that sense it makes no difference.
There are several issues at stake here:
Is Wiggins a doper - He didn't break any rules so no.
Is Froome a doper - doubtful - but again he will have benefited from Team Sky's dubious practices.
Have Team Sky broke any rules - probably not.
Do the rules on TUEs need tightening - yes
Have Team Sky bent the rules to their advantage - more than likely, as do many professionals (across all industries). In sport look at F1 - they go right up to the limit and most seasons some rule infringement causes a fuss.
Have Team Sky bent the rules beyond what is morally justifiable - probably yes.
Have Team Sky been made to look silly after stating they are ' whiter than white' and racing clean with high morals - yes
Is Brailsford bothered - no - he treats riders as commodities to massage his ego and he's now very wealthy.
Is the present leadership of British Cycling inept and rudderless - yes.
Post edited at 11:23
1
In reply to Henry Iddon:
The russians have done a fantastic job at undermining confidence in WADA and the rest haven't they ? State sponsored doping, tampering with samples etc etc and yet the big story of the year is prescribed and approved asthma medication.
The TUE system has already been tightened up. Does it need further control - I'm not qualified to say, are you ? But this is 2016, we don't need experts anymore. We want to know exactly what and every athlete is taking and why, and then we'll look it up on the internet....
We seem to have lost sight of why we have rules on drugs in sport. It's not to prevent cheating, because you can only cheat when you rules. It's not about entertainment or fairness or performance. No, it's simply a question of protecting the health of the athlete. Protecting them from themselves, or from pressure from coaches, teams, nations. And protecting them from the notion that a risking their health is essential because it's what every other athlete is doing.
So we don't leave it up to the riders, the teams or even their doctors to decide what they can take. We have rules and independent testing. But the human body is a many varied thing, and so you need exceptions, and independent arbiters of those exceptions.
So should TUEs be public, or should you be banned from racing if you need a TUE ? No - because that might cause a situation where an athlete risks their health rather than take some medication which they have a legitimate need for. Simple rules might satisfy fans, but the only important factor is the riders health.
Yes Sky may not be "whiter than white" - would you really expect high morals of anyone who gets into bed with the Murdochs - but they do appear to have operated within the rules. Up to the line, but not beyond it. (Caveat - if you believe the story about the jiffy - actually I suspect it was cortico that Wiggins got the TUEs for, but which you can use out of comp. And they don't want to drop him further in it, even though it didn't break the rules)
The russians have done a fantastic job at undermining confidence in WADA and the rest haven't they ? State sponsored doping, tampering with samples etc etc and yet the big story of the year is prescribed and approved asthma medication.
The TUE system has already been tightened up. Does it need further control - I'm not qualified to say, are you ? But this is 2016, we don't need experts anymore. We want to know exactly what and every athlete is taking and why, and then we'll look it up on the internet....
We seem to have lost sight of why we have rules on drugs in sport. It's not to prevent cheating, because you can only cheat when you rules. It's not about entertainment or fairness or performance. No, it's simply a question of protecting the health of the athlete. Protecting them from themselves, or from pressure from coaches, teams, nations. And protecting them from the notion that a risking their health is essential because it's what every other athlete is doing.
So we don't leave it up to the riders, the teams or even their doctors to decide what they can take. We have rules and independent testing. But the human body is a many varied thing, and so you need exceptions, and independent arbiters of those exceptions.
So should TUEs be public, or should you be banned from racing if you need a TUE ? No - because that might cause a situation where an athlete risks their health rather than take some medication which they have a legitimate need for. Simple rules might satisfy fans, but the only important factor is the riders health.
Yes Sky may not be "whiter than white" - would you really expect high morals of anyone who gets into bed with the Murdochs - but they do appear to have operated within the rules. Up to the line, but not beyond it. (Caveat - if you believe the story about the jiffy - actually I suspect it was cortico that Wiggins got the TUEs for, but which you can use out of comp. And they don't want to drop him further in it, even though it didn't break the rules)
4
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes me want to puke. Are you really trying to say that, under the umbrella of the same team, Bradley Wiggins was a more likely doper than Chris Froome? Do you really believe that Bradley Wiggins" TUE's were suspicious but Chris Froome's weren't? Do you really beleive that Wiggins' one time win in the TdF was dirty but Froome's three wins were clean? This strikes me as pure bias based on personal preferences rather than a truly objective view.
> More to the point - and British Cycling. Wiggins has lost credibility with me as a road cyclist and TdF winner, but I really hope Froome's achievements and those of BC aren't diminished.
This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes me want to puke. Are you really trying to say that, under the umbrella of the same team, Bradley Wiggins was a more likely doper than Chris Froome? Do you really believe that Bradley Wiggins" TUE's were suspicious but Chris Froome's weren't? Do you really beleive that Wiggins' one time win in the TdF was dirty but Froome's three wins were clean? This strikes me as pure bias based on personal preferences rather than a truly objective view.
6
In reply to Chris the Tall:
But that's the ethos, the aspiration, and the claim, which Brailsford's made from day one. Isn't it?
A stupid slur.
> Yes Sky may not be "whiter than white" ...
But that's the ethos, the aspiration, and the claim, which Brailsford's made from day one. Isn't it?
> ... would you really expect high morals of anyone who gets into bed with the Murdochs ...
A stupid slur.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
As a PS, in case anybody didn't read it, the following excerpt (from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/19/mystery-package-fluimucil-dav... ) reveals that Sutton really just 'doesn't get it':
But in one particularly extraordinary exchange a clearly irate Sutton accused the MPs of “not embracing the success” of Team Sky and British Cycling. Taking aim at the Labour MP Ian Lucas, he told him: “You have actually upset me there.”
“You sitting there being British should be embracing the success they’ve achieved and how they’ve achieved it, rather than looking for something that’s not there,” he said. “This team, from Laura Trott to Bradley Wiggins to Jason Queally that won that gold in Sydney, Sir Chris Hoy, Pendleton, Cooke – they’ve all done it clean.
“You’ve actually upset me there in the fact that you’ve not embraced the success of British cycling as a whole. I’m astounded that you would make that sort of tone, suggesting that we’ve not done anything by the book.”
As a PS, in case anybody didn't read it, the following excerpt (from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/19/mystery-package-fluimucil-dav... ) reveals that Sutton really just 'doesn't get it':
But in one particularly extraordinary exchange a clearly irate Sutton accused the MPs of “not embracing the success” of Team Sky and British Cycling. Taking aim at the Labour MP Ian Lucas, he told him: “You have actually upset me there.”
“You sitting there being British should be embracing the success they’ve achieved and how they’ve achieved it, rather than looking for something that’s not there,” he said. “This team, from Laura Trott to Bradley Wiggins to Jason Queally that won that gold in Sydney, Sir Chris Hoy, Pendleton, Cooke – they’ve all done it clean.
“You’ve actually upset me there in the fact that you’ve not embraced the success of British cycling as a whole. I’m astounded that you would make that sort of tone, suggesting that we’ve not done anything by the book.”
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Given that MPs have hardly being queuing up to take the transport secretary to task over his statements on cycling, let alone his actions in regard to them, I think Sutton might just have a point.
The increase in popularity in cycling that is in part down to Boardman, Brailsford, Sutton et al isn't universally popular
Given that MPs have hardly being queuing up to take the transport secretary to task over his statements on cycling, let alone his actions in regard to them, I think Sutton might just have a point.
The increase in popularity in cycling that is in part down to Boardman, Brailsford, Sutton et al isn't universally popular
1
In reply to Removed User:
This misses the point. This isn't about legality, it is about credibility. So Wiggins loses a degree of public credibility because he patently was not truthfull in claiming he was in good health before the 2012 TdF when, given the subsequent revelations about the severity of the treatment he was under he clearly wasn't. People don't like being lied to, even if it is not breaking any rules.
> This is the kind of hypocrisy that makes me want to puke. Are you really trying to say that, under the umbrella of the same team, Bradley Wiggins was a more likely doper than Chris Froome? Do you really believe that Bradley Wiggins" TUE's were suspicious but Chris Froome's weren't?
This misses the point. This isn't about legality, it is about credibility. So Wiggins loses a degree of public credibility because he patently was not truthfull in claiming he was in good health before the 2012 TdF when, given the subsequent revelations about the severity of the treatment he was under he clearly wasn't. People don't like being lied to, even if it is not breaking any rules.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Those are entirely separate matters.
If you are defending Sutton's responses in the Sky/Wiggins/'doping'(?) context, then I think you are badly mistaken.
> Given that MPs have hardly being queuing up to take the transport secretary to task over his statements on cycling, let alone his actions in regard to them ...
Those are entirely separate matters.
> ... I think Sutton might just have a point.
If you are defending Sutton's responses in the Sky/Wiggins/'doping'(?) context, then I think you are badly mistaken.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Indeed, but my point is that MPs should be more interested in one rather than the other.
Or rather, it is appropriate for them to take Grayling to task, but should leave investigation of Team Sky to UKAD. When we have MPs demanding to know the medical histories of particular riders they are heading into matters that don't concern them. As I said earlier, this is a bit like dragging in Wenger or Mourinho and asking them why their players dived .
Anyway, I don't really see whats so wrong with Sutton's response
https://twitter.com/velocast/status/811529295998947332
> Those are entirely separate matters.
Indeed, but my point is that MPs should be more interested in one rather than the other.
Or rather, it is appropriate for them to take Grayling to task, but should leave investigation of Team Sky to UKAD. When we have MPs demanding to know the medical histories of particular riders they are heading into matters that don't concern them. As I said earlier, this is a bit like dragging in Wenger or Mourinho and asking them why their players dived .
Anyway, I don't really see whats so wrong with Sutton's response
https://twitter.com/velocast/status/811529295998947332
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Yes, all very "I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."
> “You sitting there being British should be embracing the success they’ve achieved and how they’ve achieved it, rather than looking for something that’s not there..." [...] “You’ve actually upset me there in the fact that you’ve not embraced the success of British cycling as a whole."
Yes, all very "I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles."
1
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I wouldn't disagree with much that you say.
That said some of the dietary regimes that Sky and particularly Froome use ( cutting out carbs for months on end prior to competitions and putting the liver under huge strain ) are suspect morally.
Ketone drinks at £2000 per litre, Zenon gas.... the list goes on.
And Brailsford has expressed an interest in cranial stimulation where the bodies natural shut down mode under huge training loads can be over ridden - is rather morally questionable !!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/06/team-sky-dave-brailsford-cycl...
Big money professional sport where winner takes all and make all the £ leads people to bend the rules.
I wouldn't disagree with much that you say.
That said some of the dietary regimes that Sky and particularly Froome use ( cutting out carbs for months on end prior to competitions and putting the liver under huge strain ) are suspect morally.
Ketone drinks at £2000 per litre, Zenon gas.... the list goes on.
And Brailsford has expressed an interest in cranial stimulation where the bodies natural shut down mode under huge training loads can be over ridden - is rather morally questionable !!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/06/team-sky-dave-brailsford-cycl...
Big money professional sport where winner takes all and make all the £ leads people to bend the rules.
Post edited at 17:22
In reply to Removed User:
There is evidence that calls BW's win into question; there isn't in Froome's case, and I think it's clear that Froome is a more talented stage racer than Wiggins. The objective view casts doubt on Wiggins and not on Froome.
There is evidence that calls BW's win into question; there isn't in Froome's case, and I think it's clear that Froome is a more talented stage racer than Wiggins. The objective view casts doubt on Wiggins and not on Froome.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
That's funny!
> Indeed, but my point is that MPs should be more interested in one rather than the other.
> Or rather, it is appropriate for them to take Grayling to task, but should leave investigation of Team Sky to UKAD. When we have MPs demanding to know the medical histories of particular riders they are heading into matters that don't concern them. As I said earlier, this is a bit like dragging in Wenger or Mourinho and asking them why their players dived .
> Anyway, I don't really see whats so wrong with Sutton's response
That's funny!
1
3
2
In reply to Henry Iddon:
The Tour has changed a lot since the days when Desgrange was called an "Assassin", but it still remains the ultimate endurance event in mainstream sport. Merely getting to the finish is highly regarded, finishing last even has it's own accolade (Christmas teaser - who has the lowest ever placed finish - the lanterne rouge of the lanterne rouges ?). Such an event is obviously going to put your body under huge stress - some would say that more should be done to keep the rider in good health - intravenous recovery options should be encouraged, not banned - whereas the prevailing view is that it is a test of how the body deteriorates over 3 weeks.
As fans we don't don't want to see riders crashing over cliffs, or have 19 year-olds with blood like treacle dying in their sleep, but at the same time we don't want to see the sport emasculated either. And what elite sports people don't take a few risks with their long term health - hell, this is a climbing site, a sport which has always exalted those who push what is humanly possible to the very limits. And eulogised those who took one risk too many.
Getting to the top in any sport takes both talent and dedication - if Froome chooses to, and is able to stay off the carbs then that isn't morally suspect - it's a factor in what has got him to the top. (And the difference between him and those of us who ride for cake and/or cheesy chip butties). (as another aside - listen to Graham Obree talking to Richard Moore on the Cycling podcast - Obree reckons that the only difference between them was mental).
Now you could argue that riders should have a minimum BMI, or a BMI passport. You could even say there ought to be more testing on their mental stability. But in the absence of rules you will also get people who will push things to the limits and beyond - this is the nature of competition
Are they banned ? Are they harmful. If it simply a matter of cost then it becomes a cost/benefit question. Some people will spend £10 grand on a bike for a sportive.....
Cheating occurs in sport at all levels. It's human nature. At least at the professional level there is a degree of independent oversight. Which brings me back to the beginning - the only reason we are having this debate is that one nation has been caught cheating on a massive scale and wants to undermine the credibility of the independent bodies that has sought to sanction them.
> That said some of the dietary regimes that Sky and particularly Froome use ( cutting out carbs for months on end prior to competitions and putting the liver under huge strain ) are suspect morally.
The Tour has changed a lot since the days when Desgrange was called an "Assassin", but it still remains the ultimate endurance event in mainstream sport. Merely getting to the finish is highly regarded, finishing last even has it's own accolade (Christmas teaser - who has the lowest ever placed finish - the lanterne rouge of the lanterne rouges ?). Such an event is obviously going to put your body under huge stress - some would say that more should be done to keep the rider in good health - intravenous recovery options should be encouraged, not banned - whereas the prevailing view is that it is a test of how the body deteriorates over 3 weeks.
As fans we don't don't want to see riders crashing over cliffs, or have 19 year-olds with blood like treacle dying in their sleep, but at the same time we don't want to see the sport emasculated either. And what elite sports people don't take a few risks with their long term health - hell, this is a climbing site, a sport which has always exalted those who push what is humanly possible to the very limits. And eulogised those who took one risk too many.
Getting to the top in any sport takes both talent and dedication - if Froome chooses to, and is able to stay off the carbs then that isn't morally suspect - it's a factor in what has got him to the top. (And the difference between him and those of us who ride for cake and/or cheesy chip butties). (as another aside - listen to Graham Obree talking to Richard Moore on the Cycling podcast - Obree reckons that the only difference between them was mental).
Now you could argue that riders should have a minimum BMI, or a BMI passport. You could even say there ought to be more testing on their mental stability. But in the absence of rules you will also get people who will push things to the limits and beyond - this is the nature of competition
> Ketone drinks at £2000 per litre, Zenon gas.... the list goes on.
Are they banned ? Are they harmful. If it simply a matter of cost then it becomes a cost/benefit question. Some people will spend £10 grand on a bike for a sportive.....
> Big money professional sport where winner takes all and make all the £ leads people to bend the rules.
Cheating occurs in sport at all levels. It's human nature. At least at the professional level there is a degree of independent oversight. Which brings me back to the beginning - the only reason we are having this debate is that one nation has been caught cheating on a massive scale and wants to undermine the credibility of the independent bodies that has sought to sanction them.
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Given Murdoch's business practices over the decades, I think it would be stupid to discount cheating on Team Sky. It would be entirely consistent with the rest of his business empire.
> A stupid slur.
Given Murdoch's business practices over the decades, I think it would be stupid to discount cheating on Team Sky. It would be entirely consistent with the rest of his business empire.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
what evidence?
> There is evidence that calls BW's win into question; there isn't in Froome's case, and I think it's clear that Froome is a more talented stage racer than Wiggins. The objective view casts doubt on Wiggins and not on Froome.
what evidence?
In reply to tim000:
The fact that he had TuEs for a potent corticosteroid conveniently before Grand Tours, a drug that has performance enhancing qualities and which is like a sledgehammer to crack the nut of hay fever, an allergy he not only didn't mention in his autobiography but which was overlooked when he discussed how great his health had been in 2012.
The arguments have been done to death on other threads.
The fact that he had TuEs for a potent corticosteroid conveniently before Grand Tours, a drug that has performance enhancing qualities and which is like a sledgehammer to crack the nut of hay fever, an allergy he not only didn't mention in his autobiography but which was overlooked when he discussed how great his health had been in 2012.
The arguments have been done to death on other threads.
Post edited at 12:49
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
None of which invalidates his victory, because non of this (even lying in interviews or your autobiography) is against the rules.
> The fact that he had TuEs for a potent corticosteroid conveniently before Grand Tours, a drug that has performance enhancing qualities and which is like a sledgehammer to crack the nut of hay fever, an allergy he not only didn't mention in his autobiography but which was overlooked when he discussed how great his health had been in 2012.
None of which invalidates his victory, because non of this (even lying in interviews or your autobiography) is against the rules.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
correct .
> None of which invalidates his victory, because non of this (even lying in interviews or your autobiography) is against the rules.
correct .
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
you do realise this is all media lead . it is in there interest to keep it going as long as possible to sell papers/magazines .
you do realise this is all media lead . it is in there interest to keep it going as long as possible to sell papers/magazines .
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Well they aren't going to write him out the record books, no, but his victory is tarnished in my view. I wonder if he really sees it himself as an achievement.
If I'd used corticosteroids and done my first hundred miler I wouldn't feel like I'd actually achieved it.
Well they aren't going to write him out the record books, no, but his victory is tarnished in my view. I wonder if he really sees it himself as an achievement.
If I'd used corticosteroids and done my first hundred miler I wouldn't feel like I'd actually achieved it.
3
In reply to tim000:
It isn't really, no. The initial issue was initiated by Fancy Bears and was obviously picked up in the media because it's clearly a public interest story. The 'package' story was initiated by a leak from within British Cycling and was referred by Brailsford to UKAD as I understand it. The select c'ttee had their reasons for investigating, and the media reported it as one would expect them to do.
> you do realise this is all media lead . it is in there interest to keep it going as long as possible to sell papers/magazines .
It isn't really, no. The initial issue was initiated by Fancy Bears and was obviously picked up in the media because it's clearly a public interest story. The 'package' story was initiated by a leak from within British Cycling and was referred by Brailsford to UKAD as I understand it. The select c'ttee had their reasons for investigating, and the media reported it as one would expect them to do.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Did the Fred Whitton in June. A week later I had to go to hospital as my asthma had flared up really badly. Does the fact that I needed a course of steroids simply to breath normally again invalidate my ride ? Does it invalidate the 150 I did in September ? Should I just accept that, as an asthmatic, I shouldn't ride up a hill ? Or should I accept that I have a medical condition, accept the medication for that condition, get on with my life and get on with riding my bike(s) !
> If I'd used corticosteroids and done my first hundred miler I wouldn't feel like I'd actually achieved it.
Did the Fred Whitton in June. A week later I had to go to hospital as my asthma had flared up really badly. Does the fact that I needed a course of steroids simply to breath normally again invalidate my ride ? Does it invalidate the 150 I did in September ? Should I just accept that, as an asthmatic, I shouldn't ride up a hill ? Or should I accept that I have a medical condition, accept the medication for that condition, get on with my life and get on with riding my bike(s) !
5
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly, but it seems like you're saying the effects of the drugs are retrospective. You did the FW (bloody fair play btw) and then took the drugs? I think you get the tick...
However, if you coincidentally needed steroids only before the single biggest event of your year, several years in a row, even when they're in different countries at different times, and took a systemic medication when a more localised one was more appropriate, and no-one around you was aware of your symptoms, and you wrote later about what rude health you were in, you might be on shakier ground.
I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly, but it seems like you're saying the effects of the drugs are retrospective. You did the FW (bloody fair play btw) and then took the drugs? I think you get the tick...
However, if you coincidentally needed steroids only before the single biggest event of your year, several years in a row, even when they're in different countries at different times, and took a systemic medication when a more localised one was more appropriate, and no-one around you was aware of your symptoms, and you wrote later about what rude health you were in, you might be on shakier ground.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think my original point still stands. You have a clear bias against BW in all of your observations and a clearly blinkered view of CF.
> There is evidence that calls BW's win into question; there isn't in Froome's case, and I think it's clear that Froome is a more talented stage racer than Wiggins. The objective view casts doubt on Wiggins and not on Froome.
I think my original point still stands. You have a clear bias against BW in all of your observations and a clearly blinkered view of CF.
In reply to Removed User:
It is a bias based on their relative openeness and honesty (or lack of) around TUEs and medication. Based on evidence to date of course.
It is a bias based on their relative openeness and honesty (or lack of) around TUEs and medication. Based on evidence to date of course.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
My asthma is a fairly recent problem - or at least it's only recently become sufficient of a problem for me to get medical attention. Looking back the problems were probably always there - tickly cough after running, particularly in cold air, knowing that I'm better going slow and steady uphills than sprinting. But it's only as I have increased my level of cycling in the last 5 years (and am fast approaching 50) that it has become more of an issue.
You can be in rude health one day (I dropped my mates on Hardknott) and be a physical wreck a day or so later. And when you've had a bad attack the fear of another holds you back. Medical science is able to keep those symptoms at bay, just as they can mend broken bones or correct poor eyesight, so why not use it. Ah but there's a stigma about medication that isn't there with surgery.
I dropped my mates on Hardknott because I had trained harder and was fitter, not because I'd used an inhaler that morning. In fact I know that even when I use my inhaler my peak flow is still well below there's, because we tested it.
We'll never know for sure whether BW had a valid reason for that medication, but it was prescribed to him by a doctor and he got prior approval from the relevant authorities.
My asthma is a fairly recent problem - or at least it's only recently become sufficient of a problem for me to get medical attention. Looking back the problems were probably always there - tickly cough after running, particularly in cold air, knowing that I'm better going slow and steady uphills than sprinting. But it's only as I have increased my level of cycling in the last 5 years (and am fast approaching 50) that it has become more of an issue.
You can be in rude health one day (I dropped my mates on Hardknott) and be a physical wreck a day or so later. And when you've had a bad attack the fear of another holds you back. Medical science is able to keep those symptoms at bay, just as they can mend broken bones or correct poor eyesight, so why not use it. Ah but there's a stigma about medication that isn't there with surgery.
I dropped my mates on Hardknott because I had trained harder and was fitter, not because I'd used an inhaler that morning. In fact I know that even when I use my inhaler my peak flow is still well below there's, because we tested it.
We'll never know for sure whether BW had a valid reason for that medication, but it was prescribed to him by a doctor and he got prior approval from the relevant authorities.
1
In reply to Removed User:
It's the other way round. You're not looking at the evidence. If the same evidence existed or emerged against Froome I would form the same view and be equally disappointed. And using your logic, where I should be just as sceptical of Froome as I am of Wiggins because they were on the same team, you need to suspect Wiggins based on what happened at Cofidis in 2007 (which I don't btw)
It's the other way round. You're not looking at the evidence. If the same evidence existed or emerged against Froome I would form the same view and be equally disappointed. And using your logic, where I should be just as sceptical of Froome as I am of Wiggins because they were on the same team, you need to suspect Wiggins based on what happened at Cofidis in 2007 (which I don't btw)
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
how do you know he only took it then?
>
> However, if you coincidentally needed steroids only before the single biggest event of your year,
how do you know he only took it then?
In reply to tim000:
Because there weren't TUEs for other races. He may have taken it outside competition (I don't think you need approval for that), but that hasn't been mentioned by anyone. And of course we know that he was illness free in 2012 bar a slight sniffle, because he told us so.
Because there weren't TUEs for other races. He may have taken it outside competition (I don't think you need approval for that), but that hasn't been mentioned by anyone. And of course we know that he was illness free in 2012 bar a slight sniffle, because he told us so.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
so he could have taken it at other times , not only before the TDF. also ,it`s a preventative , not a cure . you take it to avoid being ill . makes sense to use it as an insurance.
so he could have taken it at other times , not only before the TDF. also ,it`s a preventative , not a cure . you take it to avoid being ill . makes sense to use it as an insurance.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Can anyone make sense of this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093729
On my uneducated reading of this it seems to me that the active ingredient in fluimucil may have effects which are performance enhancing? Can anyone shed some light?
Can anyone make sense of this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19093729
On my uneducated reading of this it seems to me that the active ingredient in fluimucil may have effects which are performance enhancing? Can anyone shed some light?
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
And do you take it in a nebuliser? The website seems to suggest you dissolve the tablets in water and drink it.
And do you take it in a nebuliser? The website seems to suggest you dissolve the tablets in water and drink it.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
You're right, it was Froome who was criticised for using an inhaler, my mistake
> Nobody is questioning either you or Wiggins using an inhaler though.
You're right, it was Froome who was criticised for using an inhaler, my mistake
In reply to Chris the Tall:
No worries. It seems like the drug that was allegedly in the mystery package stimulates EPO production. That's a very useful side effect for a professional cyclist, I'd have thought. It may explain why they were using a drug not licensed in the U.K., which they shipped from the UK despite it not being licensed there, and not buying it where they were in France where it is licensed. It was also explain why they were giving it to an asthmatic when it's contraindicated for asthmatics and why they've prevaricated in saying what was in the package. They also tried to persuade the DM into not running the story with the offer of other stories.
The whole thing stinks and I really can't understand people not seeing it for what it almost certainly is.
No worries. It seems like the drug that was allegedly in the mystery package stimulates EPO production. That's a very useful side effect for a professional cyclist, I'd have thought. It may explain why they were using a drug not licensed in the U.K., which they shipped from the UK despite it not being licensed there, and not buying it where they were in France where it is licensed. It was also explain why they were giving it to an asthmatic when it's contraindicated for asthmatics and why they've prevaricated in saying what was in the package. They also tried to persuade the DM into not running the story with the offer of other stories.
The whole thing stinks and I really can't understand people not seeing it for what it almost certainly is.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Whether it is performance enhancing is a secondary question, the key issue is whether it's unregulated use is hazardous to an athletes health. And if it does, the really difficult part is deciding whether it should be banned alotogether, or allowed under control. Hardly a question for the uneducated.
And the cortico steroid that BW used is so powerful that the experts have decided that it should only be controlled in competition, and even then subject to a threshold. Compare that to EPO, HGH or Clenbuterol
> Can anyone make sense of this?
> On my uneducated reading of this it seems to me that the active ingredient in fluimucil may have effects which are performance enhancing? Can anyone shed some light?
Whether it is performance enhancing is a secondary question, the key issue is whether it's unregulated use is hazardous to an athletes health. And if it does, the really difficult part is deciding whether it should be banned alotogether, or allowed under control. Hardly a question for the uneducated.
And the cortico steroid that BW used is so powerful that the experts have decided that it should only be controlled in competition, and even then subject to a threshold. Compare that to EPO, HGH or Clenbuterol
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I'd imagine giving a medicine that's contraindicated for asthmatics to an asthmatic would be something covered in medicine 101. I'd certainly like its potentially PE effects to be investigated.
But it is controlled isn't it? And a number of ex-dopers attest to its potency. There are studies establishing the PE properties of corticosteroids. I've experienced it myself - it was bordering on scary.
> Whether it is performance enhancing is a secondary question, the key issue is whether it's unregulated use is hazardous to an athletes health. And if it does, the really difficult part is deciding whether it should be banned alotogether, or allowed under control. Hardly a question for the uneducated.
I'd imagine giving a medicine that's contraindicated for asthmatics to an asthmatic would be something covered in medicine 101. I'd certainly like its potentially PE effects to be investigated.
> And the cortico steroid that BW used is so powerful that the experts have decided that it should only be controlled in competition, and even then subject to a threshold. Compare that to EPO, HGH or Clenbuterol
But it is controlled isn't it? And a number of ex-dopers attest to its potency. There are studies establishing the PE properties of corticosteroids. I've experienced it myself - it was bordering on scary.
In reply to Yanis Nayu
I'm just upset that Sky are doping but still manage to turn a beautiful sport in to a boring procession around France.
I'm just upset that Sky are doping but still manage to turn a beautiful sport in to a boring procession around France.
In reply to Stephen3005:
two points , cycling is not just the tour de france . there are other races . and this years was anything but boring .
two points , cycling is not just the tour de france . there are other races . and this years was anything but boring .
1
In reply to tim000:
And another thing, the best days racing in the grand tours was stage 15 of the vuelta, although stage 11 of the TDF was a close second. One animated by froome, one by his rivals. If you like cycling, you can enjoy both.
And another thing, the best days racing in the grand tours was stage 15 of the vuelta, although stage 11 of the TDF was a close second. One animated by froome, one by his rivals. If you like cycling, you can enjoy both.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
yes , sky were really strong that day . totally bossed it
yes , sky were really strong that day . totally bossed it
Post edited at 10:58
In reply to tim000:
One thing we agree on then!
> two points , cycling is not just the tour de france . there are other races . and this years was anything but boring .
One thing we agree on then!
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
some interesting research on NAC here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21394639
note the EPO decrease before boost..
i see H&B sell it cheap in pill form- i might try it out
> Can anyone make sense of this?
> On my uneducated reading of this it seems to me that the active ingredient in fluimucil may have effects which are performance enhancing? Can anyone shed some light?
some interesting research on NAC here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21394639
note the EPO decrease before boost..
i see H&B sell it cheap in pill form- i might try it out
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...