JiffyGate....No Charges!!

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Roan is an embarrassment. I listened to him on the radio, BC's new CEOs appeasement campaign in apologising for having not done anything wrong seemed to go down well with him but he was surprised that Sky took a robust stance of not having done anything wrong when UKAD have found no wrong doing. He then went on to say that Wiggins will be remembered as the first British Tour winner and most decorated Olympian but that this will have cast a cloud over him before regurgitating how he had gained an exemption to use performance enhancing drugs for a hitherto unstated health issue. Absolutely no mention that there are processes allowing that which were followed and that, irrespective of personal views on whether it is ethical, he broke no anti-doping rules. It was almost like he had backed a non-story for his chance of Pulizter glory and it had come crashing down around him.

Roan's worst moment was dragging poor Josh Edmondson in front of the cameras clearly against his will.

type:epyt

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

Pross

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

He starts out innocent, he doesn't need to prove it.

If I were to say type:epyt has a liking for young boys and had a parcel of indecent images sent to him and the police investigate it but find no evidence would it be because the issue has burnt itself out? Would you be happily sniggering about the hoopla safe in the knowledge you had no involvement in such things? Would you happily laugh off the media knocking on your door or asking you about it everytime they saw you? Would you then be happy when the allegations got mentioned every time your name was mentioned even after you hadn't not been found guilty?

frisbee

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

Please prove that you haven't molested a goat.

awavey

if the outcome of this is professional Doctors employed to care for athletes welfare through either their national or professional sports teams roles, can no longer hand out prescribed medicine in such a way that they have no recall or records of who,what,where,when,why or even how they did it

Im sure we can all agree, and it might well be the only thing we agree on this case, that will be a good thing.

Vino'sGhost

frisbee wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

Please prove that you haven't molested a goat.

Thats a duff analogy. There is no indication that goats might be involved, there were inconsistancies wiggins/sky/bc story. Things that didnt seem right. If you like there was a wiff of bull not goat hence the enquiry. Luckily/ convieniently thigs appear to be so disorganised we’ll never know for sure.

Ignore the whiff of animal if you like but some will always smell it.

bobmcstuff

Well I for one think type:epyt needs to answer these allegations. His silence only makes him look more guilty. No smoke without fire!!

Joking aside there was a bit more to it with Wiggins wasn't there.

ddraver

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if/how Dr. Freeman is investigated, especially by the GMC given that they have the power to end his career at a stroke.

(once again though I note that none of the journos have noted that the doctor at the centre of the row learned his mad skillz at a football team)

RichN95.

awavey wrote:

if the outcome of this is professional Doctors employed to care for athletes welfare through either their national or professional sports teams roles, can no longer hand out prescribed medicine in such a way that they have no recall or records of who,what,where,when,why or even how they did it

Im sure we can all agree, and it might well be the only thing we agree on this case, that will be a good thing.

The thing is that all of this was probably implemented ages ago. This enquiry is about events when Schleck and Menchov were big players and Froome hadn't won a pro race.

You have people going on about the blurred lines between Sky and BC, which may have been relevant in 2011 but isn't now. It's like the Labour party now analysing the 2010 Election - it's ancient history

type:epyt

Pross wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

He starts out innocent, he doesn't need to prove it.

If I were to say type:epyt has a liking for young boys and had a parcel of indecent images sent to him and the police investigate it but find no evidence would it be because the issue has burnt itself out? Would you be happily sniggering about the hoopla safe in the knowledge you had no involvement in such things? Would you happily laugh off the media knocking on your door or asking you about it everytime they saw you? Would you then be happy when the allegations got mentioned every time your name was mentioned even after you hadn't not been found guilty?

Are you searching for a kindred spirit? If so, you ain’t found one in me ... One of the BBC lads should be out soon and you can befriend them ... Until then, maybe get just a little perspective?

RichN95.

type:epyt wrote:

Pross wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

He starts out innocent, he doesn't need to prove it.

If I were to say type:epyt has a liking for young boys and had a parcel of indecent images sent to him and the police investigate it but find no evidence would it be because the issue has burnt itself out? Would you be happily sniggering about the hoopla safe in the knowledge you had no involvement in such things? Would you happily laugh off the media knocking on your door or asking you about it everytime they saw you? Would you then be happy when the allegations got mentioned every time your name was mentioned even after you hadn't not been found guilty?

Are you searching for a kindred spirit? If so, you ain’t found one in me ... One of the BBC lads should be out soon and you can befriend them ... Until then, maybe get just a little perspective?

I notice you have not denied the allegations. Surely an innocent man would do so. This merely confirms our suspicions. And you haven't even addressed the goats.
I am going ask the moderators to investigate. When they report in a year's time if you have not provided documented evidence that you have not molested boys or goats then a cloud will be over your head forever.

Richmond Racer 2

frisbee wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

Please prove that you haven't molested a goat.

Gruff Ride



Aye thank yew

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Pross wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Wiggins would be better served saying nothing ... He has not been proven innocent, just the ridiculousness of everything around the issue burnt itself out ... I’m glad he had a ‘hard time’ … If he was completely without involvement he would have been happily sniggering about the hoopla ...

He starts out innocent, he doesn't need to prove it.

If I were to say type:epyt has a liking for young boys and had a parcel of indecent images sent to him and the police investigate it but find no evidence would it be because the issue has burnt itself out? Would you be happily sniggering about the hoopla safe in the knowledge you had no involvement in such things? Would you happily laugh off the media knocking on your door or asking you about it everytime they saw you? Would you then be happy when the allegations got mentioned every time your name was mentioned even after you hadn't not been found guilty?

Are you searching for a kindred spirit? If so, you ain’t found one in me ... One of the BBC lads should be out soon and you can befriend them ... Until then, maybe get just a little perspective?

I notice you have not denied the allegations. Surely an innocent man would do so. This merely confirms our suspicions. And you haven't even addressed the goats.
I am going ask the moderators to investigate. When they report in a year's time if you have not provided documented evidence that you have not molested boys or goats then a cloud will be over your head forever.

Presumably we should all go around and knock on type:epyt's door until the mods report back and whenever anyone sees him / her ask all about it? It will be fine though as they'll just have a snigger through it despite the damage to their reputation.

Vino'sGhost

And so the group rounds on one with a non compliant view.

You may all end up as goat blowers on this one in time

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

And so the group rounds on one with a non compliant view.

You may all end up as goat blowers on this one in time

When that view is the modern social media view that it's up to an accused person to prove innocence rather than the accuser to prove guilt then it deserves to be rounded on. There's a reason why most legal systems insist on proof of guilt (whether beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probability). This sort of thing is more like the old witch hunts than seeking truth.

carbonclem

Over in the land of rabid madness, it seems that S Sutton is the leak. Theory is that he was bribing Brad/Sky/BC for financial reward and dropped the Jiffy Bag and Lizzie stories to show his 'power'.
It seems bonkers to me given that he was dropping himself right in the centre of it all, unless I'm missing something?

vinnymarsden

Wheres that come from re S.Sutton bribing Sky!!
Wow...thats a totally new angle to it all!!!

RichN95.

CarbonClem wrote:

Over in the land of rabid madness, it seems that S Sutton is the leak. Theory is that he was bribing Brad/Sky/BC for financial reward and dropped the Jiffy Bag and Lizzie stories to show his 'power'.
It seems bonkers to me given that he was dropping himself right in the centre of it all, unless I'm missing something?

Close to the land of rabid madness, in the main section of the website their was a interesting below the line comment on one of the stories.

In three parts it said:

Bradley knows very well who the 'whistleblower' is. The whole of British Cycling does as does the cycling press. The target of all this was Freeman. Wiggo is collateral. All too insane for words.

It's all to do with a personal feud within British Cycling. I imagine that's what Bradley wishes to get at

I could always be wrong. But my understanding is that it stems from a bonkers dispute between two individuals, with Wiggo as collateral.

I thought this was intriguing. Anyone heard anything?

Vino'sGhost

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

And so the group rounds on one with a non compliant view.

You may all end up as goat blowers on this one in time

When that view is the modern social media view that it's up to an accused person to prove innocence rather than the accuser to prove guilt then it deserves to be rounded on. There's a reason why most legal systems insist on proof of guilt (whether beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probability). This sort of thing is more like the old witch hunts than seeking truth.

Im not sure the rabble baying for blood are any more realistic than the rabble denying guilt.

And theres certainly a difference between innocent and lack of evidence to confirm guilt. Just ask Armstrong.

iainf72

This does ring true - ie. , it's someone exacting some kind of revenge.

After all, spite never sleeps

Richmond Racer 2

I remain convinced that twice-dropped-from-the-Olympic-TP-squad Andy Tennant is in the mix

He was also one of the main protagonists - if not THE protagonist - behind Heiko Salzwedel getting fired

larkim

I've always maintained that nowadays one of the best controls against doping, certainly against systematic doping within a team, is the fact that inevitably people fall out with each other and there is a waiting media with a paycheck ready to buy the story from anyone who cares to tell it. I know it doesn't seem like much of a structured stance against doping, but in nearly all of the major doping scandals the whistleblowing has come when people start falling out with each other. Clearly that won't always work, as people are reluctant to incriminate themselves sometimes, but the chain of supply, use, monitoring etc of doping programmes can't be contained to such a small group of individuals that any doper can have confidence that no-one will spill the beans.

The very fact that the jiffy-bag story came out is just one of those scenarios, albeit it seems that the journos really, really over-played it with excessive insinuation which the whistle-blower it seems didn't provide them with.

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

And theres certainly a difference between innocent and lack of evidence to confirm guilt. Just ask Armstrong.

Of course, but you can't go down the route of continuing to assume guilt because someone hasn't been proven innocent. It's a very dangerous route to take because proving innocence can be impossible hence my reference to witch hunts of days gone by. After all, type:epyt still hasn't produced anything to show they're innocent of the mock accusations.

blazing_saddles

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

And theres certainly a difference between innocent and lack of evidence to confirm guilt. Just ask Armstrong.

Of course, but you can't go down the route of continuing to assume guilt because someone hasn't been proven innocent. It's a very dangerous route to take because proving innocence can be impossible hence my reference to witch hunts of days gone by. After all, type:epyt still hasn't produced anything to show they're innocent of the mock accusations.

Guilt by association is very much en vogue among social media judiciary these days
In which case......



:P

RichN95.

^^^ Based on a book written by Jon Ronson who I am going to see this evening

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

And theres certainly a difference between innocent and lack of evidence to confirm guilt. Just ask Armstrong.

Of course, but you can't go down the route of continuing to assume guilt because someone hasn't been proven innocent. It's a very dangerous route to take because proving innocence can be impossible hence my reference to witch hunts of days gone by. After all, type:epyt still hasn't produced anything to show they're innocent of the mock accusations.

Did type:epyt have goats *accidentally* delivered to his house?

Did he ask for and be granted permission to interfere with goats on 3 occasions?

Was a mystery animal crate taken across several borders to be delivered to him with no record kept of what animal was in said crate and why?

Does he have colleagues with a history of interfering with goats and providing others with goats?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Did type:epyt have goats *accidentally* delivered to his house?

Did he ask for and be granted permission to interfere with goats on 3 occasions?

Was a mystery animal crate taken across several borders to be delivered to him with no record kept of what animal was in said crate and why?

Does he have colleagues with a history of interfering with goats and providing others with goats?

I don't care if he had permission from the goats or even if it's legal, for me it is very much a grey area and ethically wrong. If you're so sick that you have to molest a goat I think you should be resting.

carbonclem

TailWindHome wrote:

Was a mystery animal crate taken across several borders to be delivered to him with no record kept of what animal was in said crate and why?

This is key for me. You can surely get a goat anywhere, even on a Sunday evening in a small Swiss town. Why would you go to the bother of having your own goat taken out to you, surely any old goat would do?

Assuming it WAS a goat. And not a Llama or something.

Vino'sGhost

CarbonClem wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Was a mystery animal crate taken across several borders to be delivered to him with no record kept of what animal was in said crate and why?

This is key for me. You can surely get a goat anywhere, even on a Sunday evening in a small Swiss town. Why would you go to the bother of having your own goat taken out to you, surely any old goat would do?

Assuming it WAS a goat. And not a Llama or something.

Well if it were a Llama i can understand the cuffufle. Llama is def on the banned list whereas goats are fine out of competition and he'd technically just finished the competition so a bit of goat action is fine.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Guilt by association is very much en vogue among social media judiciary these days
In which case......



:P

I've just looked at this poster again. Kevin Spacey! Is nothing off limits to his wandering hands? Not even goats.