JiffyGate....No Charges!!

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

Maybe he had his goat tested by a vet and knew it was clean and didn't want to risk an untested foreign goat? Who knows, he's someone who interferes with goats so we're unlikely to get the truth are we?

The point is that there's no basis or reason to suggest type:epyt has any involvement with goats.
It's not a reasonable comparison to the Wiggins situations at all.

ddraver

Ah but there are no reasons to suggest he doesn't either. I for one will always be suspicious....

tailwindhome

ddraver wrote:

Ah but there are no reasons to suggest he doesn't either. I for one will always be suspicious....

You're just trying to convince yourself of the equivalency now.

mfin

I don't get the fuss. The case is closed on the jiffy bag. It really isn't that exciting unless you really really really really like exploring any old speculation.

We know the guy had approved cortisone injections, he won the tdf by what, 3 mins? I personally have a lot of doubt over whether he would have won it without the cortisone shots, some people will think otherwise.

If his celeb profile has taken a bit of a dent then it's tough on him really, unless he's thick and stupid he would have known that if the mention of the cortisone ever got out, he'd be looked at differently, and that it would make the news. Any dent he's taken was already done with the cortisone. This jiffy bag stuff was a little scene on the after credits of that, nothing more.

He's been looked into for everything now, his results stand. Move on now innit.

ddraver

Whilst I mostly agree with you muffin man this stuff...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42030913

...makes me feel a bit narked that Wiggins' career has been "dented" by something which is so commonplace in other sports. See also Andrew Flintoff's knee.

RichN95.

With this jiffy bag stuff. Let's for a moment assume that it was the trimawhatsit/kenacort that is the alternative theory.

Now let's also assume that he was injected with it after the race on the same day

So what rules have been broken?

The drug in question is banned in competition but is legal out of competition. But what does in and out of competition mean? Does it refer to the tests or the actual taking of the drug?
If you tested positive for the drug after a one day race, but had 100% certain proof that it was taken a couple of days before - that's still going to be an infringement. So this would probably suggest it refers to the tests. In which case would the injection have been 'in-competition' when the competition had finished.

Then there's the WADA definition of when in competition becomes out of competition. In 2011 it was midnight after the event - so by the definition of the day, the injection would have been IN. But today it changes once the rider has met any post-race testing obligations. So by today's definition it would have been OUT, and therefore legal. Now the general philosophy of law is not to prosecute someone according to an old law if that law is no longer in force.

So it would be an uphill task for any lawyer to make a prosecution stick.


Then there is the then new no needle policy. Given that the UCI had, via the TUE application, already been informed of the intention to use an injection it is difficult to see how this is an infringement either.


So in summary, even if the alternative story is absolutely true I don't think there is anything that is actionable.

mr_goo

Pross wrote:

Ah, the chip is still firmly on your shoulder then.

If you're suggesting it's anything to do with envy and money Pross, then you are way wide of the mark. It's purely down to his skewed perspective of how badly he has been treated. It does however highlight the change in mentality that many celebrities and sports people have when they make it big and have a bit of cash. They believe that they are on this untouchable pedestal, immune to scrutiny.
Given Wiggins' background and upbringing he disappoints me.

Pross

Mr Goo wrote:

Pross wrote:

Ah, the chip is still firmly on your shoulder then.

If you're suggesting it's anything to do with envy and money Pross, then you are way wide of the mark. It's purely down to his skewed perspective of how badly he has been treated. It does however highlight the change in mentality that many celebrities and sports people have when they make it big and have a bit of cash. They believe that they are on this untouchable pedestal, immune to scrutiny.
Given Wiggins' background and upbringing he disappoints me.

So should he complain less about his treatment than, for example, a teacher accused of misconduct who gets investigated with the conclusion there is no evidence of wrongdoing? Would you have a lack of sympathy for the teacher if the press pursued them for a year and even when it was all over they continued suggesting that the allegations would taint their reputation? I've heard people in similar situations use the exact phrase 'living hell' in interviews so are you saying if you've made a lot of money from the career that has put you in the spotlight you just have to accept anything thrown at you and shrug it off? Being rich and famous doesn't change the way your brain and emotions work, rich people still feel stress, anxiety and depression the same as the rest of us.

Pross

TailWindHome wrote:

Pross wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

Maybe he had his goat tested by a vet and knew it was clean and didn't want to risk an untested foreign goat? Who knows, he's someone who interferes with goats so we're unlikely to get the truth are we?

The point is that there's no basis or reason to suggest type:epyt has any involvement with goats.
It's not a reasonable comparison to the Wiggins situations at all.

He hasn't proved that so I'm not convinced. The only difference is that the hasn't been a 12 month investigation into him that has found no evidence so he's even more likely to be guilty really.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

With this jiffy bag stuff. Let's for a moment assume that it was the trimawhatsit/kenacort that is the alternative theory.

Now let's also assume that he was injected with it after the race on the same day

So what rules have been broken?

The drug in question is banned in competition but is legal out of competition. But what does in and out of competition mean? Does it refer to the tests or the actual taking of the drug?
If you tested positive for the drug after a one day race, but had 100% certain proof that it was taken a couple of days before - that's still going to be an infringement. So this would probably suggest it refers to the tests. In which case would the injection have been 'in-competition' when the competition had finished.

Then there's the WADA definition of when in competition becomes out of competition. In 2011 it was midnight after the event - so by the definition of the day, the injection would have been IN. But today it changes once the rider has met any post-race testing obligations. So by today's definition it would have been OUT, and therefore legal. Now the general philosophy of law is not to prosecute someone according to an old law if that law is no longer in force.

So it would be an uphill task for any lawyer to make a prosecution stick.


Then there is the then new no needle policy. Given that the UCI had, via the TUE application, already been informed of the intention to use an injection it is difficult to see how this is an infringement either.


So in summary, even if the alternative story is absolutely true I don't think there is anything that is actionable.

You sound like a man who has moved to the 'bargaining' stage


I hadn't noticed before that the UKAD decision confirmed that the information they received was that the jiffy bag contained Triamcinolone.

It had already been confirmed that the contents of the package were administered on the bus on the evening of the last day of the Dauphine.

By definition, at that time, it was in competition without a TUE and therefore a doping offence

I don't know the implications of this in terms of sanctions.

tailwindhome

Pross wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Pross wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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?

Maybe he had his goat tested by a vet and knew it was clean and didn't want to risk an untested foreign goat? Who knows, he's someone who interferes with goats so we're unlikely to get the truth are we?

The point is that there's no basis or reason to suggest type:epyt has any involvement with goats.
It's not a reasonable comparison to the Wiggins situations at all.

He hasn't proved that so I'm not convinced. The only difference is that the hasn't been a 12 month investigation into him that has found no evidence so he's even more likely to be guilty really.

You know that's nonsense.

tailwindhome

Sutton talking TUEs as providing a gain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692

Freeman asked to leave Manchester World cup

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... octor.html

mfin

ddraver wrote:

Whilst I mostly agree with you muffin man this stuff...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42030913

...makes me feel a bit narked that Wiggins' career has been "dented" by something which is so commonplace in other sports. See also Andrew Flintoff's knee.

I don't think you should be a bit narked at all, purely on the basis that the drug concerned couldn't make a healthy Flintoff throw a ball better or hit a ball better, but it could make a healthy Wiggins ride better. Or, put it another way. If you play cricket and cycle yourself, go get some cortisone shots and see if your cycling improves, it will, your cricket won't.

Now, I know it's said it was taken for a condition, so that condition was addressed, and painted that's all it was for and did, but whether it would do that or actually benefit the person too is not binary like the PR tried to paint it, far far from it. Plus, of course if it wasn't needed at all, there's where the situation would really stink.

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

tim000 wrote:

no , they gave it to someone who was flying out anyway .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017 ... -fall-guy/



Why was he flying out anyway?
He didn't mention it to the committee.

He drove from kent to manchester to collect the package, flew to Europe, hired a car, delivered the package flew back home again. Nothing to see here, move along please.

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

Sutton talking TUEs as providing a gain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692

Freeman asked to leave Manchester World cup

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... octor.html

Nicely done, id missed those.

No doubt Sutton’s credibility will be discounted round here since by his earlier admission he had no oversight of medical procedures, that was freemans area. He’s also been fired so hes just causing trouble etc. Trying to write a book blah blah blah.

Pross

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Whilst I mostly agree with you muffin man this stuff...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42030913

...makes me feel a bit narked that Wiggins' career has been "dented" by something which is so commonplace in other sports. See also Andrew Flintoff's knee.

I don't think you should be a bit narked at all, purely on the basis that the drug concerned couldn't make a healthy Flintoff throw a ball better or hit a ball better, but it could make a healthy Wiggins ride better. Or, put it another way. If you play cricket and cycle yourself, go get some cortisone shots and see if your cycling improves, it will, your cricket won't.

Now, I know it's said it was taken for a condition, so that condition was addressed, and painted that's all it was for and did, but whether it would do that or actually benefit the person too is not binary like the PR tried to paint it, far far from it. Plus, of course if it wasn't needed at all, there's where the situation would really stink.

You don't think a cortisone jab for a knee injury would have helped Flintoff continue bowling faster than if he hadn't had it? Pace and bounce were his biggest weapons.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Sutton talking TUEs as providing a gain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42033692

Freeman asked to leave Manchester World cup

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... octor.html

Nicely done, id missed those.

No doubt Sutton’s credibility will be discounted round here since by his earlier admission he had no oversight of medical procedures, that was freemans area. He’s also been fired so hes just causing trouble etc. Trying to write a book blah blah blah.

Easy to miss.

The Dan Groan piece only came out overnight.
The few new bits are hardly earth shattering stuff, given the BBC's agenda and a documentary to pitch.
Most of it is just a re-hash of a re-hash of a re-hash of a................................

The Freeman piece is pointless.

RichN95.

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Whilst I mostly agree with you muffin man this stuff...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42030913

...makes me feel a bit narked that Wiggins' career has been "dented" by something which is so commonplace in other sports. See also Andrew Flintoff's knee.

I don't think you should be a bit narked at all, purely on the basis that the drug concerned couldn't make a healthy Flintoff throw a ball better or hit a ball better, but it could make a healthy Wiggins ride better. Or, put it another way. If you play cricket and cycle yourself, go get some cortisone shots and see if your cycling improves, it will, your cricket won't.

Even if we discount the injury aspect, surely it would allow him to bowl longer spells. It could also help him keep the weight off which was certainly an issue for him

tailwindhome

Sky were using cortisone OOC to promote weight loss and turn pursuit champion Bradley Wiggins into Tour contender Wiggins. They could see the results up to and including the 2011 Dauphine. They wanted to get him back on the treatments as soon as possible after the Dauphine but they knew they couldn't wander into any French pharmacy and pick it up. Sutton asked Cope to bring it out to the Dauphine finish and administered it to Wiggins on the bus assuming that once the race had finished he was out of competition and unaware of the 'midnight' rule. They also used TUEs as a fail safe so that they could push this strategy right to the line and were covered.

In doing so they've committed two offences

They've falsified the need for TUEs
They've administered a banned substances 'In Competition' without having genuine TUE in place.

Evidence in support of this 'set of facts'

Someone has reported to UKAD that the package contained triamcinolone
The quantity of Cortisone held by British cycling
Sky's reluctance to join the MPCC and accept their guidelines on Cortisone use OOC
Sky's public statements all along have said they would go right 'up to the line'
Sky riders showing rapid weight loss in preparation for key races
Suttons admission that TUEs were used to find gains


Sky's version of events requires that one believes that the only record of movements of medicines in and out of the stock were kept on one doctor's laptop which was later lost and that the doctor is now too ill to attend hearings and that no one but that doctor knew what was in the package even though that doctor was in France when the medicine was removed from stock and put into the jiffy pack. Indeed, it's now being reported that Wiggins claims that the package wasn't delivered to him (which may be literally true) and 'fuck knows what was it the bag'

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bradley ... red-to-me/



It's really up to yourself what you believe at this stage. You may also, quite reasonably believe that until the witness who spoke to UKAD comes forward and supports the allegation with evidence or supports how they would know what was in the package in credible way that there isn't enough for you to agree the set of facts above.

You may also agree the set of facts above but not feel that it constitutes doping. Not really anyway. Not like EPO and blood bags. Not like the heyday.

In a management speak phrase, somehow appropriate to Sky. "We are where we are"

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Sky were using cortisone OOC to promote weight loss and turn pursuit champion Bradley Wiggins into Tour contender Wiggins. They could see the results up to and including the 2011 Dauphine. They wanted to get him back on the treatments as soon as possible after the Dauphine but they knew they couldn't wander into any French pharmacy and pick it up. Sutton asked Cope to bring it out to the Dauphine finish and administered it to Wiggins on the bus assuming that once the race had finished he was out of competition and unaware of the 'midnight' rule. They also used TUEs as a fail safe so that they could push this strategy right to the line and were covered.

In doing so they've committed two offences

They've falsified the need for TUEs
They've administered a banned substances 'In Competition' without having genuine TUE in place.

Alternative view.

It's nothing to do with weight loss. Wiggins didn't lose much weight, if any, between the Dauphine (which he won in both '11 and '12). He had managed weight loss perfectly well in 2009 with no TUEs. Also there's nothing similar for Froome, so it's specific to Wiggins.

It is very much to do with the allergies/asthma. Wiggins has a long documented history of this. Previously he has not taken injections, but previously he has never been a team leader so could afford bad days on lesser medication. But now without that luxury they took a more powerful option - and annual kenacort shots aren't unusual in the general public.

Once this was the route chosen, they would have obviously selected the most beneficial time to take it, quite probably with potential performance gains in mind.

So the TUEs seem legit to me and not falsified

As for the 'In competition' issue - I'll refer you back to my comments as to whether it refers to actions or tests and the fact that what was an offence in 2011 is no longer an offence and therefore hard to build a fair case on.

Pross

I would argue that giving a player 6 injections in a day to get a player on the pitch in a friendly match, presumably as you think you have a better chance to win with them playing, is worse both ethically (risk of long term damage to the player) and in terms of performance enhancement that gaining a TUE to take a medication out of competition that may have some short term benefits that are likely to expire before the next race. However, both situations comply with the rules in place at the time. The only difference is that in one case there are investigations, insinuations of cheating whilst in the other the only person seemingly bothered has admitted he would do the same but only if the match was important. The double standards are staggering.

durhamwasp

Who's everyones guess for the source he keeps hinting at? Froome?

mfin

Pross wrote:

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Whilst I mostly agree with you muffin man this stuff...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42030913

...makes me feel a bit narked that Wiggins' career has been "dented" by something which is so commonplace in other sports. See also Andrew Flintoff's knee.

I don't think you should be a bit narked at all, purely on the basis that the drug concerned couldn't make a healthy Flintoff throw a ball better or hit a ball better, but it could make a healthy Wiggins ride better. Or, put it another way. If you play cricket and cycle yourself, go get some cortisone shots and see if your cycling improves, it will, your cricket won't.

Now, I know it's said it was taken for a condition, so that condition was addressed, and painted that's all it was for and did, but whether it would do that or actually benefit the person too is not binary like the PR tried to paint it, far far from it. Plus, of course if it wasn't needed at all, there's where the situation would really stink.

You don't think a cortisone jab for a knee injury would have helped Flintoff continue bowling faster than if he hadn't had it? Pace and bounce were his biggest weapons.

You've missed the point I was mainly trying to get at. Take a healthy Flintoff and intramuscularly jab him up with cortisone, would he be better at cricket? It is debatable and I'd basically say no, not really. Now, take a healthy Wiggins and intramuscularly jab him up with a corticosteroid, would he be better at cycling? Yes he would.

Forget the asthma stuff, it's just that principle that Wiggins was likely to benefit from the cortisone regardless of the asthma, Sky knew this, it doesn't take an expert to get that, hence the problem with it.

That said, it doesn't matter, it was all okay-ed, so in that regard I don't care at all.

(I certainly don't care on any standards between sports either, but that's another issue. I have no need to feel the world acknowledges a problem in football, cricket, rugby, whatever just because I like cycling. I like cycling because I do, I don't care who else likes it, who has a problem with the way they perceive doping in it, or who doesn't like it).

Dorset_Boy

Mfin - is there a difference between Freddie & Wiggins in this? Without the injections Freddie probably could not have played at all, so yes a significantly worse performance without the drug.

As for the Phil Jones situation, the double standards amongst the media and football in general are simply staggering. Where the F is Dan Roan? Why is he not getting this as a lead story on the BBC sports news?

iainf72

durhamwasp wrote:

Who's everyones guess for the source he keeps hinting at? Froome?

I'd put that him in the definitely not camp

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

durhamwasp wrote:

Who's everyones guess for the source he keeps hinting at? Froome?

I'd put that him in the definitely not camp

Yeah. Whoever it was was either at the Dauphine or in Manchester

joe2008

Dorset Boy wrote:

Mfin - is there a difference between Freddie & Wiggins in this? Without the injections Freddie probably could not have played at all, so yes a significantly worse performance without the drug.

Still not getting it then :roll:

andyp

William Fotheringham's proposal for how Sky can begin to repair their reputation? They join the MPCC.

I genuinely lol'd.

ddraver

Mfin - he fully admits that by the last few games he was having injection EVERY SESSION. After which he'd go on, bowl every over he had at once and then be unable to walk until the next break and injection.

Same drug.

The not doping cos skill argument here (non dopanus skilliamus?) is arranging deckchairs on the Titanic....

sloppyschleckonds

andyp wrote:

William Fotheringham's proposal for how Sky can begin to repair their reputation? They join the MPCC.

I genuinely lol'd.

The cheerleaders are becoming more desperate