CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling

Hinaultscrapcousin

Pross wrote:

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

Pross wrote:

Out of interest did the MPs ask UKAD how the record keeping compared to other sports organisation and teams they investigate? If not are they fulfilling their brief to look at drug use in sport as opposed to a single issue? Also, UKAD have been accused at this same hearing if not being fit for purpose - have they even looked in this much depth at TUE use in any other sport?

They've got hold of a thread and they are pulling. If it were football I think everyone here would be cheering them on.

Or they've allowed others to guide them away and set the agenda?

Don't get me wrong, BC and Sky are beginning to look a disorganised shower at best but I can't help thinking they are looking for low hanging fruit and potentially ignoring what has fallen in the floor (e.g. as you mention football are they looking at the shoddy record keeping in a sport with so much money that appears to be leading to high profile whereabouts failures?). I reckon if they delved into any other sport with the same vigour they been lured into looking at this case they would find exactly the same problems but cycling (understandably with its history) gives them an easy target without upsetting to many influential people.

I don't disagree with that at all, but I don't think we can say they should let this go either. I get as fed up as the next person when someone like Greg Rutherford comes on TV and uses cycling to distract from the doping problems in athletes, but I think it would be too hypocritical to criticise the committee for continuing down this line of questioning.

Pross wrote:

I thought Boardman just chose not to seek a TUE?

He applied, got verbal permission but then was turned down. I think just after the Festina scandal.

feelgoodlost

Pross wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

pedro118118 wrote:

Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.

Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.

It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.

It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):

"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"

Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.

But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?

Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.

No you can't. Chris Boardman had to retire as the drugs that could treat his osteoporosis? were banned and he could nt get a TUE for them. Some yank master riders have recently been fighting bans for taking testosterone which I think they might have won.

Remember that theoretically, a TUE isn't just rubber stamped than way they do, it is meant to go to a 3 man committee and get approved after scrutiny.

I thought Boardman just chose not to seek a TUE?

Correct. From what I recall (and I think he mentions it in the ITV doc about him taking on the hour record) he said that he didn't want to have to keep using steroids with a TUE to extend his career.

Richmond Racer 2

Nope, you guys

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/story ... 17,00.html

'He says he obtained verbal clearance from the governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, to receive the treatment, and bought the medicine, but his application was turned down at the end of 1998 after the Festina scandal.

"I presented two dossiers from individual specialists and a bone scan. They said it was no problem. I got it organised and they turned me down because of what had been going on. They said that if I wanted the treatment I would have to stop cycling.'

feelgoodlost

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Nope, you guys

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/story ... 17,00.html

'He says he obtained verbal clearance from the governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, to receive the treatment, and bought the medicine, but his application was turned down at the end of 1998 after the Festina scandal.

"I presented two dossiers from individual specialists and a bone scan. They said it was no problem. I got it organised and they turned me down because of what had been going on. They said that if I wanted the treatment I would have to stop cycling.'

Fair enough - stand corrected!

Matthewfalle

Whatever the package contained aside, I know that if in my job and every other HCP I know that if we didn't know exactly, all the time, every time what kinds of drugs we had, who they were meant for, where they where, where they had gone to and when they went there, etc, we get our backsides kicked from here to kingdom come and probably get our tickets revoked.

To send a parcel of drugs off with a bloke who didn't know what he was carrying and not make any notes of what it is was is kinda unprofessional imho.

BC/Sky/the team's doctor do seem very disorganised on this front.

And as for the bloke carrying parcels around Europe and not knowing what was in them - blimey, better him than me next time he gets stopped by customs.

ddraver

Imagine if Sagan rode for Sky.....

Rodrego Hernandez

ddraver wrote:

Imagine if Sagan rode for Sky.....

Thanks for that. Really added to the thread.

Any other riders not currently riding for Sky that you would like to imagine riding for Sky?

tailwindhome

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Imagine if Sagan rode for Sky.....

Thanks for that. Really added to the thread.

Any other riders not currently riding for Sky that you would like to imagine riding for Sky?

Matthewfalle

Just heard the BC apology for bullying, sexism, etc on Radio 4. Blimey.

From the wording it looks like they've realized that they have a massive problem and are now on massive damage limitation.....

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Imagine if Sagan rode for Sky.....

Thanks for that. Really added to the thread.

Any other riders not currently riding for Sky that you would like to imagine riding for Sky?

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Just heard the BC apology for bullying, sexism, etc on Radio 4. Blimey.

From the wording it looks like they've realized that they have a massive problem and are now on massive damage limitation.....

It's a massive load of old bollicks is what it is.
(apologies for the spelling, but we don't have the luxury of the BB's swear filter, here)

Matthewfalle

Which part - the charges or the apology?

I will confess at this juncture to only knowing very limited amounts of the story.

top_bhoy

Matthewfalle wrote:

Just heard the BC apology for bullying, sexism, etc on Radio 4. Blimey.

From the wording it looks like they've realized that they have a massive problem and are now on massive damage limitation.....

Assuming BC haven't screwed up the record-keeping and test data, first thing they can do is to quickly conclude the Jess Varnish saga. Its not in the interests of all the parties involved, including Sutton, to prolong it.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Which part - the charges or the apology?

I will confess at this juncture to only knowing very limited amounts of the story.

Well, given one follows the other, both I suppose.

FocusZing

My mama said, "To get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom."

yorkshireraw

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

Doorstepping is just a cheap trick to get tomorrows frontpage/backpage photo. Why a BBC journalist feels the need to do it I don't know but he's not the first.

The 'BBC Sports Editor' role has a long and undistinguished list of incumbents - Mihir Bose, David Bond and now Roan. Utter shower all 3 of them.

Richj

Not sure Bespoke on Radio Five really added anything new. But interesting to hear how hard Gilmore found it to get a TUE and also her experience of Tramadol use in her team.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08g5lh9

pedro118118

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Just heard the BC apology for bullying, sexism, etc on Radio 4. Blimey.

From the wording it looks like they've realized that they have a massive problem and are now on massive damage limitation.....

Assuming BC haven't screwed up the record-keeping and test data, first thing they can do is to quickly conclude the Jess Varnish saga. Its not in the interests of all the parties involved, including Sutton, to prolong it.

Re: Varnish; what's the conclusion? Compensation? I hear that she is keen to resume her career, but - bullying allegations aside - she wasn't delivering the results to warrant a spot on the programme (poor choice of phrase?!), so reinstatement seems unlikely, unless she can demonstrate wrongful dismissal?

DeVlaeminck

Has she been given the data to argue that point though?

Jenny Copnall (Former GB MTBer) was on the radio yesterday and she was arguing the selection criteria should be more open and less subjective - whether that is based on first however many positions in selection races, best times in a given period or whatever. Yes there are obvious arguments against that but on balance isn't that what sport should be about - if I beat you I get the spot on the team - not if Shane Sutton thinks you might be better than me in 12 months and in any case he doesn't like the way I complained about the way he treated another rider.

She also said the test for whether BC had the culture right was whether she could recommend the sport to a daughter and at the moment that was definitely not the case. That is not good and when you see their continued obfuscation and failure to answer questions with straight answers what hope of change?

top_bhoy

Whether she was good enough or not doesn't appear to be Varnish's primary issue (though I am sure she would say her performances were good enough). I interpret the few comments I've read recently (admittedly not a lot) are more about her sudden removal from the performance programme and being treated differently than what had previously occurred with other performance programme cyclists. The issues around the 'inept' administration of drugs in British cycling doesn't help the BC cause.

carbonclem

Objectively - does Jenny Copnalls comments come from her time against the BC system? Which I assume is some time ago and MTB based, in which BC has little or no interest, so the treatment she received my be more linked to the sport rather than a sexist basis? In a similar vein that some of Nicole Cooks treatment would be a bias against road riding then.

Regarding Varnish's selection/non selection - track performance is so scientific and based on prefect peaking that results a year out dont mean so much do they? Regrettable, for Jess, the medal haul that BC acheived bear this out. Much the same as Wendy Housheval(sp)'s case in 2012.

RichN95.

CarbonClem wrote:

Objectively - does Jenny Copnalls comments come from her time against the BC system? Which I assume is some time ago and MTB based, in which BC has little or no interest, so the treatment she received my be more linked to the sport rather than a sexist basis? In a similar vein that some of Nicole Cooks treatment would be a bias against road riding then.

She also wasn't much good. She rarely made the top 30 in World Cup races. Usually came outside top 40.

It's always worth remembering that Brailsford was willing to drop Britain's first Tour de France winner, at his iconic peak, because he thought there was someone better. So dropping someone who failed to qualify for her event is hardly controversial.

Rodrego Hernandez

RichN95 wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Objectively - does Jenny Copnalls comments come from her time against the BC system? Which I assume is some time ago and MTB based, in which BC has little or no interest, so the treatment she received my be more linked to the sport rather than a sexist basis? In a similar vein that some of Nicole Cooks treatment would be a bias against road riding then.

She also wasn't much good. She rarely made the top 30 in World Cup races. Usually came outside top 40.

It's always worth remembering that Brailsford was willing to drop Britain's first Tour de France winner, at his iconic peak, because he thought there was someone better. So dropping someone who failed to qualify for her event is hardly controversial.

Totally agree. There may have been some selections that were questionable, possibly would have been avoided if the selection criteria had been thought out better but thats the beauty of hindsight.

At the end of the day, they had to select the best athletes and their track record of doing so has been better than any sport in the UK or overseas, ever. Take the Millar selection for the Copenhagen worlds, possibly wouldn't have selected based on performance but the result demonstrated his effectiveness as road captain. Unfortunately his failure at the London games to choose to chase the break cost Can a medal so it's swings and roundabouts in some cases!

carbonclem

Yeah, I just read up on Copnalls case. I see what she is saying, and I guess it depends if you thought Eddie Edwards, or the Jamaican bobsleigh team should be there just because they were the countries best or not!

blazing_saddles

BC did, at least in part, cover their bases on the points that DeVlaeminck makes in his post.

bobmcstuff

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

The sky fanatics are being very quiet, Fran Millar must be in an internet free zone, Richard Moore has gone silent, all those that swore blind that Dave B (who they had never met) would never do anything remotely dodgy have all been conspicuous by their absence. The only sound really coming from David Walsh who is obviously in a panic as his current Golden Goose is teetering at the edge of a precipice so he's trying to protect Froome.

How so? I can see tweets on his Twitter feed - and have since all this started - and its been the subject of several Cycling Podcasts - again, since it all broke. His name has also been the byline on articles on the subject in The Scotsman

Wasn't he with the team when all of this was going on. He was embedded with them for a period and has happily cashed in on the whole marginal gains BS. Same as Matthew Syed.

And if you read his posts, you'll learn what he's saying, instead of inventing a scenario in which he's said absolutely zippo

I'm basing it on more than his twitter feed and I wasn't having a 'pop' - sorry if you took it that I was.

Today on twitter he's been quoting the Times article linked above which is critical of Sky. He's posted quite a bit on the subject in addition to discussing it on the cycling podcast, where he specifically talked about his annoyance that DB was telling him this stuff at the very same Dauphine where the mystery package was delivered.

I'm not too familiar with Moore's past having only followed cycling for the past 4-5 years, but was surprised to read that you think he's been quiet about this since that's certainly not my perception.

yorkshireraw

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

The sky fanatics are being very quiet, Fran Millar must be in an internet free zone, Richard Moore has gone silent, all those that swore blind that Dave B (who they had never met) would never do anything remotely dodgy have all been conspicuous by their absence. The only sound really coming from David Walsh who is obviously in a panic as his current Golden Goose is teetering at the edge of a precipice so he's trying to protect Froome.

How so? I can see tweets on his Twitter feed - and have since all this started - and its been the subject of several Cycling Podcasts - again, since it all broke. His name has also been the byline on articles on the subject in The Scotsman

Wasn't he with the team when all of this was going on. He was embedded with them for a period and has happily cashed in on the whole marginal gains BS. Same as Matthew Syed.

And if you read his posts, you'll learn what he's saying, instead of inventing a scenario in which he's said absolutely zippo

I'm basing it on more than his twitter feed and I wasn't having a 'pop' - sorry if you took it that I was.

Today on twitter he's been quoting the Times article linked above which is critical of Sky. He's posted quite a bit on the subject in addition to discussing it on the cycling podcast, where he specifically talked about his annoyance that DB was telling him this stuff at the very same Dauphine where the mystery package was delivered.

I'm not too familiar with Moore's past having only followed cycling for the past 4-5 years, but was surprised to read that you think he's been quiet about this since that's certainly not my perception.

It wasn't Richard Moore embedded with Sky at the '11 Dauphine - it was Lionel Birnie

yorkshireraw

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Objectively - does Jenny Copnalls comments come from her time against the BC system? Which I assume is some time ago and MTB based, in which BC has little or no interest, so the treatment she received my be more linked to the sport rather than a sexist basis? In a similar vein that some of Nicole Cooks treatment would be a bias against road riding then.

She also wasn't much good. She rarely made the top 30 in World Cup races. Usually came outside top 40.

It's always worth remembering that Brailsford was willing to drop Britain's first Tour de France winner, at his iconic peak, because he thought there was someone better. So dropping someone who failed to qualify for her event is hardly controversial.

Totally agree. There may have been some selections that were questionable, possibly would have been avoided if the selection criteria had been thought out better but thats the beauty of hindsight.

At the end of the day, they had to select the best athletes and their track record of doing so has been better than any sport in the UK or overseas, ever. Take the Millar selection for the Copenhagen worlds, possibly wouldn't have selected based on performance but the result demonstrated his effectiveness as road captain. Unfortunately his failure at the London games to choose to chase the break cost Can a medal so it's swings and roundabouts in some cases!

eh? Who should have had the place Millar had in the '11 World's team then? Bear in mind he came 7th in the TT (Wiggins was 2nd) and had come 3rd on GC at the Eneco the previous month. He'd also won a Giro TT and worn the pink jersey earlier that season.

At the 2012 Games on the last climb Millar suggested to Cav he should go with the break, as he looked strong enough to bridge - Cav said no, we stick with the plan to bring it back for a sprint.

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Today on twitter he's been quoting the Times article linked above which is critical of Sky. He's posted quite a bit on the subject in addition to discussing it on the cycling podcast, where he specifically talked about his annoyance that DB was telling him this stuff at the very same Dauphine where the mystery package was delivered.

I'm not too familiar with Moore's past having only followed cycling for the past 4-5 years, but was surprised to read that you think he's been quiet about this since that's certainly not my perception.

He was on Radio 5 for an hour last night talking about it with Rob Hatch and Rochelle Gillmore.

He and the other podcast guys don't seem to go to the extremes that some of their colleagues where everything is either a triumph or a crisis with nothing in between. Social media doesn't tend to like calm considered opinions.

carbonclem

Sky confirm the Dr Freeman had been issuing staff, friends etc with kenacort.

Not sure where this one is heading ....