JiffyGate....No Charges!!

DeVlaeminck

Extended interview with Wiggins on Rad5 after 10 tonight. Comes across quite well on the shorter version just aired.

Pross

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

So the Commons Committee also hate SKY and so that is why all this is happening?

No that happened because the newly appointed chair of the committee saw an opportunity to get his name in the papers. How often do you see him in the media - the chairs of the big committees hardly ever are. None of this process has actually achieved anything constructive. The recommendations in the report (which how these reports should be judged) are barely present.

Fantastic.

Bloke appointed by independent commission to oversee investigation did it all by himself to get his name in the papers.

Seriously?

You do realise this was an inquiry by the Parliamentary Select Committee for the CMS department and not an independent comission don't you? No-one was appointed to look into this, the committee had decided to take a poke into athletics as the Russian scandal was big news. Part of the way through that the Fancy Bears hacks came out, ironically to distract attention from Russian doping, and became even bigger news so the committee took it on themselves to encompass Sky / Wiggins / BC into their investigation.

If you genuinely doubt that these committees are not seen by the members as an opportunity to show boat and raise their profile then take a look at their antics when carrying out the inquiry into phone hacking where Tom Watson in particular was far more intent on raising his profile than getting to the truth.

I'm guessing the members who undertook the inquiry into match fixing in tennis (that they chose to start off the back of a report on Buzzfeed!) who missed out on this one are a bit gutted - no invites to host HIGNFY for them!

Vino'sGhost

Yeah, it’s a report that is meaningless

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Yeah, it’s a report that is meaningless

I would argue the subject matter in the phone hacking inquiry was more important, can you name one recommendation that was implemented following that lengthy, high profile and costly inquiry?

For what it's worth I agree with the committee's recommendation in this inquiry that doping should be made illegal. It's long overdue (even if it does result in an imbalance between countries).

StillGoing

Matthewfalle wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Well, if Wiggins does lose his 2011 TdF title and it goes to the runner up, guess who gets his 6th tour win.

And if he loses his through the Sally incident then he'll be down to whatever he'll be down to but back up due to doping. Which is the reason why he lost one.

But if he was part of that select group who trained separately and had the special doctor won't he be roped into all this anyway and therefore lose the title ge'll get because the other bloke lost it due to the drugs they were all taking?


Oh this is a bloody farce now. I give up.

If Wiggins does lose his, and Froome as well, when will there have been a winner who hasn't lost a T de F title?

For that, there would need to be something that suggested he was doping at the time of the TdF wins and the Salbutamol saga isn't yet decided. It obviously grates with you though, such is your venom towards Sky. Are you Jeremy Corbyn in disguise and particularly anti British? :roll:

pinno

Blazing Saddles wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Well, if Wiggins does lose his 2011 TdF title and it goes to the runner up, guess who gets his 2nd tour win.

Andy Schleck.
That boys luck sure has changed.:P

Matthewfalle

philthy3 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Well, if Wiggins does lose his 2011 TdF title and it goes to the runner up, guess who gets his 6th tour win.

And if he loses his through the Sally incident then he'll be down to whatever he'll be down to but back up due to doping. Which is the reason why he lost one.

But if he was part of that select group who trained separately and had the special doctor won't he be roped into all this anyway and therefore lose the title ge'll get because the other bloke lost it due to the drugs they were all taking?


Oh this is a bloody farce now. I give up.

If Wiggins does lose his, and Froome as well, when will there have been a winner who hasn't lost a T de F title?

For that, there would need to be something that suggested he was doping at the time of the TdF wins and the Salbutamol saga isn't yet decided. It obviously grates with you though, such is your venom towards Sky. Are you Jeremy Corbyn in disguise and particularly anti British? :roll:

What's Britishness got to with it? Or is all this sky fanaticism just jingoism?

Anyway, wouldn't my comments really be construed as anti Belgian and anti Kenyan or even anti Australian?

awavey

RichN95 wrote:

A telling point here is that Damien Collins doing the rounds saying how the TUE was inappropriate to treat asthma. But the TUE application clearly says that it was for treating allergies, not asthma.

but tbf allergies are linked with having asthma though, they dont cause it as such, but you tend to find if youve got asthma, youve got allergies, and the things that trigger your asthma to flare up, be that dust mites,pollution,cold air or pollen , or at least make it alot worse, tend to be allergies as well. and you tend to find if you have asthma, you also suffer from hayfever and eczema.

certainly an allergy to pollen will make your asthma worse, and simply taking asthma meds wont stop the allergy, so treat the allergies and it will be alot easier to cope with the asthma

RichN95.

awavey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A telling point here is that Damien Collins doing the rounds saying how the TUE was inappropriate to treat asthma. But the TUE application clearly says that it was for treating allergies, not asthma.

but tbf allergies are linked with having asthma though, they dont cause it as such, but you tend to find if youve got asthma, youve got allergies, and the things that trigger your asthma to flare up, be that dust mites,pollution,cold air or pollen , or at least make it alot worse, tend to be allergies as well. and you tend to find if you have asthma, you also suffer from hayfever and eczema.

certainly an allergy to pollen will make your asthma worse, and simply taking asthma meds wont stop the allergy, so treat the allergies and it will be alot easier to cope with the asthma

I don't doubt it. But the TUE forms clearly said that it was to combat allergies. That Collins claimed otherwise shows a shoddiness in his methods.

ben@31

Surely you mean 2012 and not 2011.

Unless Cadel Evans suddenly developed asthma on stage 20 and had to see the Dr.

Vino'sGhost

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sir- ... -69530wrpc

Vino'sGhost

Another non rule breaking . Cynical using charity rules to make money.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5c26 ... 92182647c9

Richmond Racer 2

ben@31 wrote:

Surely you mean 2012 and not 2011.

Unless Cadel Evans suddenly developed asthma on stage 20 and had to see the Dr.

well who knows. I mean, Cuddles did suffer from allergies so

sherer

Piers Morgan was talking about this today on TV with David Walsh and Sharon Davies.. typically one sided piece as they all agreed with each other.

As far as I can see Wiggo asked the UCI for a TUE and got one. If the UCI don't seem concerned with this, then surely there isn't an issue

StillGoing

ben@31 wrote:

Surely you mean 2012 and not 2011.

Unless Cadel Evans suddenly developed asthma on stage 20 and had to see the Dr.

Yes typo with stubby fingers.

Vino'sGhost

sherer wrote:

Piers Morgan was talking about this today on TV with David Walsh and Sharon Davies.. typically one sided piece as they all agreed with each other.

As far as I can see Wiggo asked the UCI for a TUE and got one. If the UCI don't seem concerned with this, then surely there isn't an issue

UCI is under WADA rules, WADA is saying that TUE is under review but requires physicians to be honest. They can see how its being abused but I suspect are at a loss as to how it can be effectively policed whilst still providing options for Athletes with genuine need to get the medical treatment they need.

Dorset_Boy

Isn't that why they now require an independent doctor to sign it off?

(Mind you Rugby Union uses independent doctors in internationals now and some of them seem to struggle to tell the difference between a knee injury and a blow to the head (as does Nigel Owens!!)

kingstongraham

Dorset Boy wrote:

Isn't that why they now require an independent doctor to sign it off?

(Mind you Rugby Union uses independent doctors in internationals now and some of them seem to struggle to tell the difference between a knee injury and a blow to the head (as does Nigel Owens!!)

That's harsh on Owens - he made it very clear that he didn't agree with the doctor, but had to go along with the medical professional's opinion.

Dorset_Boy

KingstonGraham wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Isn't that why they now require an independent doctor to sign it off?

(Mind you Rugby Union uses independent doctors in internationals now and some of them seem to struggle to tell the difference between a knee injury and a blow to the head (as does Nigel Owens!!)

That's harsh on Owens - he made it very clear that he didn't agree with the doctor, but had to go along with the medical professional's opinion.

The second one, Nigel instantly said head injury, even though it was the player holding his head because he was in pain from the leg injury. He was the closest official to the action at that time, so any doctor would then have to call for the HIA because the ref said head injury. Nigel got it wrong, (just like too many of his decisions in the Eng v Scotland match, esp failing to send off the eye gouger!)

bompington

Dorset Boy wrote:

just like too many of his decisions in the Eng v Scotland match, esp failing to send off the eye gouger!)

indeed. Shocking that Owens doesn't see what every England player and fan knows to be the case, that England, simply because they are naturally superior, should always be awarded a penalty when one of their players grabs an opponent by the throat.

Anyway, this is OT - we can continue this discussion on the 6N thread if you want, although I do notice it's been a bit quiet on there for the last few days...

Dorset_Boy

bompington wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

just like too many of his decisions in the Eng v Scotland match, esp failing to send off the eye gouger!)

indeed. Shocking that Owens doesn't see what every England player and fan knows to be the case, that England, simply because they are naturally superior, should always be awarded a penalty when one of their players grabs an opponent by the throat.

Anyway, this is OT - we can continue this discussion on the 6N thread if you want, although I do notice it's been a bit quiet on there for the last few days...

Grabbed by the throat in response to an attempted eye gouge.

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Vino'sGhost

Dorset Boy wrote:

bompington wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

just like too many of his decisions in the Eng v Scotland match, esp failing to send off the eye gouger!)

indeed. Shocking that Owens doesn't see what every England player and fan knows to be the case, that England, simply because they are naturally superior, should always be awarded a penalty when one of their players grabs an opponent by the throat.

Anyway, this is OT - we can continue this discussion on the 6N thread if you want, although I do notice it's been a bit quiet on there for the last few days...

Grabbed by the throat in response to an attempted eye gouge.

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Ha yes they played really well, they deserved the win.

I cant think of a practical way around the Doctor assesment issue. If someone has a medical need they have a medical need. and a doctors the best person to decide. Perhaps the only option is either everything is ok or nothing is ok. If you can ride ride, if not then look after you health and stay off the bike / pitch / court etc

bompington

Dorset Boy wrote:

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Yep, it's nice to see that, using the key metrics of victories per pound spent, or per registered club player (England has 15 for every Scottish one), Scotland remains well ahead of England.

EDIT: but then, of course, so does pretty much everyone else

Vino'sGhost

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

If you breathing isnt as good as someone elses, or you cant cope with the conditions as well as someone else then you are artificially removing your natural weaknesses. Or put another way reducing someone elses natural advantage.

Wiggins allergy falls into this category entirely.

The same argument could be applied to strength or power to weight, or recovery times from training or injury or difficult earlier stages.

Wiggins thinks its entirely reasonable to remove his frailty from the equation so he can be on a "level playing field" . This argument is weakened further still if the reason for the legitimate use is a convenient cover. I dont imagine for one moment that he is alone in this approach and I dont imagine that any sport is immune.

Vino'sGhost

bompington wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Yep, it's nice to see that, using the key metrics of victories per pound spent, or per registered club player (England has 15 for every Scottish one), Scotland remains well ahead of England.

LOLOL this is true. but every dog has his day

Tashman

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

If you breathing isnt as good as someone elses, or you cant cope with the conditions as well as someone else then you are artificially removing your natural weaknesses. Or put another way reducing someone elses natural advantage.

Wiggins allergy falls into this category entirely.

The same argument could be applied to strength or power to weight, or recovery times from training or injury or difficult earlier stages.

Wiggins thinks its entirely reasonable to remove his frailty from the equation so he can be on a "level playing field" . This argument is weakened further still if the reason for the legitimate use is a convenient cover. I dont imagine for one moment that he is alone in this approach and I dont imagine that any sport is immune.

No sport is immune these days. Anyone who receives a pain killing injection/rub/paracetemol by your standards for instance.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Yep, it's nice to see that, using the key metrics of victories per pound spent, or per registered club player (England has 15 for every Scottish one), Scotland remains well ahead of England.

EDIT: but then, of course, so does pretty much everyone else

Given the overwhelmingly superior resources and players numbers England have over every other nation, even losing to New Zealand should be a rarity.

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

anyway, can't change the result now and Scotland played very well. Must be nice for them to finally see the calcutta cup for the first time in a decade, and what about twice in 17 years?!

Yep, it's nice to see that, using the key metrics of victories per pound spent, or per registered club player (England has 15 for every Scottish one), Scotland remains well ahead of England.

EDIT: but then, of course, so does pretty much everyone else

Given the overwhelmingly superior resources and players numbers England have over every other nation, even losing to New Zealand should be a rarity.

To be fair, they haven't lost to them in over three years.

Vino'sGhost

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

there has to be a line somewhere. (or nowhere) I think improving lung function in an endurance sport is beyond where i would draw that line.

I have no opinion on diabetes.

We need to remember that elite sport is Elite sport and the participants should be elite not chemicaly or biologicaly improved. I cant wait for Gene doping to become mainstream......