JiffyGate....No Charges!!

mfin

joe2008 wrote:

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:

Yeah, I don't know how he didn't get it. It's funny how when people are just looking at it from a different perspective can't read and compute simple stuff.

confused@BR

That football story of the six painkiller injections to play half a game reminded me of the Moscow Olympics. Yes I know, a long time ago. The pictures of a British athlete (400/800M runner?) receiving injections on the track, in the stadium, before a final was enough to turn me off all types of 'sporting' competition. I respect the effort & sacrifice of individuals but really? Does it matter so much?
Not to me.
Cycling attracts me precisely because of it's amoral history/nature. As the Mafia would say "it's not personal, it's business".

mfin

ddraver wrote:

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.

I don't get what that is to do with what I was saying at all.

I'll be a little clearer (maybe), forget the fact that Flintoff couldn't go on very well without the shots, forget it, completely.... now...

Then read what I was saying about a HEALTHY Flintoff and a HEALTHY Wiggins, now, if they both had the shots they had, and had them in circumstances when they didn't need them, who'd benefit? I think Wiggins would benefit a LOT (just like you or I would if we had those shots), and Flintoff wouldn't.

The point is, the Wiggins shots are not a binary black and white fix for a problem. The drug has a benefit to a healthy cyclist, and could quite easily have a benefit to a cyclist who "sometimes gets asthma problems" but "they're not that bad right now, but there's a chance I'll get them".

It's such a simple thing to understand. I'd guess you do understand this.

A lot of people seem to get a bit funny about this concept just through being naturally defensive of Wiggins I think. I don't get this myself. To people who are neither pro or anti Wiggins, these concepts about the possible advantage of the shots is quite simple to understand really. Of course, on the other side it is worth saying that the anti-Wiggins brigade just decide this concept is enough to hang him and Sky by, they need to grow up and accept again that it's not black and white.

ddraver

I do get it. I just think you are wrong...

(and patronising AF but...)

mfin

ddraver wrote:

I do get it. I just think you are wrong...

(and patronising AF but...)

Well, I thought you must have got it, but your reference back to the Flintoff bit made it sound like you didn't.

It's difficult not to sound patronising when it's repeating something pretty simple, sorry.

So do you think it's a wrong conclusion that Corticosteroid shots would benefit a healthy cyclist? Really? That standalone statement you think is wrong?

durhamwasp

RichN95 wrote:

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

"tells you everything you need to know" suggests its somebody with a doping/dodgy background I guess, or just somebody Wiggo really doesn't like...

Pross

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I do get it. I just think you are wrong...

(and patronising AF but...)

Well, I thought you must have got it, but your reference back to the Flintoff bit made it sound like you didn't.

It's difficult not to sound patronising when it's repeating something pretty simple, sorry.

So do you think it's a wrong conclusion that Corticosteroid shots would benefit a healthy cyclist? Really? That standalone statement you think is wrong?

Surely the reason that corticosteroids are allowed, with a TUE, out of competition is that the experts have looked at them and decided they may provide performance enhancement but any benefit is short-term? Has the been any scientific proof of performance enhancement? I can't recall seeing anything other than anecdotes from people who used it in such a cocktail it would be impossible to know where the performance benefits came from.

Also, whilst I fully understand your Flintoff point it is different as he played a team sport and the coaching staff obviously felt a team with an injured but injected Flintoff was stronger than a team with him being replaced.

mfin

Pross wrote:

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I do get it. I just think you are wrong...

(and patronising AF but...)

Well, I thought you must have got it, but your reference back to the Flintoff bit made it sound like you didn't.

It's difficult not to sound patronising when it's repeating something pretty simple, sorry.

So do you think it's a wrong conclusion that Corticosteroid shots would benefit a healthy cyclist? Really? That standalone statement you think is wrong?

Surely the reason that corticosteroids are allowed, with a TUE, out of competition is that the experts have looked at them and decided they may provide performance enhancement but any benefit is short-term? Has the been any scientific proof of performance enhancement? I can't recall seeing anything other than anecdotes from people who used it in such a cocktail it would be impossible to know where the performance benefits came from.

Well, I am thinking it is restricted because there would likely be a benefit. Rennies are not restricted, probably because they don't provide one. Corticosteroids have been widely used and abused in cycling, so I think at least some of the reported benefits of opening up airways, riding through more pain, potential for weight loss etc are likely to have plenty of truth to them. As to how much advantage is possible, I don't know, but it doesn't take much for it to be clearly significant in a sport like cycling.

Mad_Malx

Corticosteroids don’t open up airways unless you have inflammation, and that’s why TUEs are allowed.
Weight loss claims have little experimental or theoretical evidence to support, although Holy Dave says Kenalog is the biz.
Competeting while injured and in pain: absolutely, and that’s why they are banned, to protect riders from destroying joints that should be rested.
Criteria for banning is any of 1: performance enhancement, 2: health risk to athlete 3: violates sporting spirit (no idea what this means here). Corticosteroids are definately 2, I’m not convinced about 1.

Apaz bbc2 has programme on now about bc, sky etc

iainf72

Anyone else remember the halcyon days of EPO? I remember them well, and many people who are now clutching their pearls about cortisone saying doping in the old days did not affect results because they only used cortisone and things like that...

Yet now?

gsk82

Was trimawhatever illegal when Millar took? If not, is it just him once again justifying his cheating by down playing how effective the illegal drugs were?

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Anyone else remember the halcyon days of EPO? I remember them well, and many people who are now clutching their pearls about cortisone saying doping in the old days did not affect results because they only used cortisone and things like that...

Yet now?

It's also worth remembering what 2011 was like. The Armstrong affair was rumbling along, the Valverde affair had only recently been resolved and a soon to be banned Contador had just won the Giro ahead of a Puerto alumni. Proper doping scandals.

No-one at the time thought that getting a TUE for a genuine problem was controversial (even if it was strong medicine). That all came later when people hungry for a.doping scandal post-Armstrong couldn't find one

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Anyone else remember the halcyon days of EPO? I remember them well, and many people who are now clutching their pearls about cortisone saying doping in the old days did not affect results because they only used cortisone and things like that...

Yet now?

We live in an era where 49% of all Americans believe the mainstream factual news makes stuff up, and the president is at war with the meedja.

Closer to home we live in a post-Lance world, where he deceived people for a decade.

People don't believe what they see anymore. Nout to do with actual facts or stuff like that.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Anyone else remember the halcyon days of EPO? I remember them well, and many people who are now clutching their pearls about cortisone saying doping in the old days did not affect results because they only used cortisone and things like that...

Yet now?

We live in an era where 49% of all Americans believe the mainstream factual news makes stuff up, and the president is at war with the meedja.

Closer to home we live in a post-Lance world, where he deceived people for a decade.

People don't believe what they see anymore. Nout to do with actual facts or stuff like that.

Accepting facts is one thing.
Believing an unsubstantiated version of events is entirely different

Richmond Racer 2

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Anyone else remember the halcyon days of EPO? I remember them well, and many people who are now clutching their pearls about cortisone saying doping in the old days did not affect results because they only used cortisone and things like that...

Yet now?

We live in an era where 49% of all Americans believe the mainstream factual news makes stuff up, and the president is at war with the meedja.

Closer to home we live in a post-Lance world, where he deceived people for a decade.

People don't believe what they see anymore. Nout to do with actual facts or stuff like that.

Accepting facts is one thing.
Believing an unsubstantiated version of events is entirely different

Society is increasingly polarised. You go with whatever plays to your belief system

rick_chasey

On an unrelated note, I'm reading Kershaw's rather ambitious penguin history of Europe, 1914-1949 at the moment.

Feels errrr, surprisingly relevant.

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

On an unrelated note, I'm reading Kershaw's rather ambitious penguin history of Europe, 1914-1949 at the moment.

Feels errrr, surprisingly relevant.

Man never learns from history. We are dumb as rocks.

rick_chasey

Very cheery. Check out the chapter titles.

Richmond Racer 2

I swear my alcohol consumption has increased

rick_chasey

You at the podcast show this evening?

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Accepting facts is one thing.
Believing an unsubstantiated version of events is entirely different

The thing is I don't find the 'worst case scenario' version of the jiffy bag particularly problematic. And I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

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.

Firstly it's debatable whether or not "he has not taken injections, but previously he has never been a team leader so could afford bad days on lesser medication." satisfies a reasonable medical need for a TUE.

Secondly the legitimacy of the TUE is further undermined by any decision to take the medication at a time to maximise the potential performance gains.

With regard to the 'in competition' issue it's a reasonable point that it would be unfair to take action in a case were the rules have been changed in the time since the offence. However in order for this to become relevant there needs to be an agreed 'set of facts' that the jiffy bag contained the alleged Triamcinolone. This presents two problems for Sky, they need to find a way to walk back the Flumacil lie and then deal with the PR fall out.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Accepting facts is one thing.
Believing an unsubstantiated version of events is entirely different

The thing is I don't find the 'worst case scenario' version of the jiffy bag particularly problematic. And I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.

It may surprise you, but I'm not that bothered either.
Slow period at work....

Cortisone use OOC doesn't sound great from the point of view of the rider's health but nor is falling off going down a mountain.
Put simply if it's within the rules - it ain't cheating.

Caught on a technicality because they hadn't checked the rules. Hilarious stuff.
Break the rules - you doped.

iainf72

Twitter in full effect

A retweet by Ross, of Digger pointing out an article by Stokes all about Lawton (he "exposed team sky" dontchaknow)

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status ... 1474205696

awavey

well he may not be everyones favourite journalist, but I still think its a good interview from Stokes on Cycling Tips with Matt Lawton

the link to save people trawling twitter rants
https://cyclingtips.com/2017/11/story-b ... -team-sky/

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Twitter in full effect

A retweet by Ross, of Digger pointing out an article by Stokes all about Lawton (he "exposed team sky" dontchaknow)

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status ... 1474205696

At least he hasn't tweeted what he claimed over the weekend, in the Asylum.

iainf72

What is interesting is that Lawton said BC / Sky never set the lawyers on him. I think Ross was saying they did that. But he seems to be of the impression that if you deploy lawyers, it might be because someone has said something which isn't true or libelled you. But there are people who now equate lawyers with suppressing the truth (Thanks, Lance)

RichN95.

So even Lawton says that the worst that this could be (and he seems reluctant to put his name to it) is that Wiggins is guilty of a technicality due to the definition at the time of In and Out of Competition - a definition that no longer exists (he would not be guilty under today's rules). And even that infringement is something that they had informed the UCI they were going to do 'after the Dauphine'.

It's not exactly Operacion Puerto, is it? It's barely even Chaingate.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

So even Lawton says that the worst that this could be (and he seems reluctant to put his name to it) is that Wiggins is guilty of a technicality due to the definition at the time of In and Out of Competition - a definition that no longer exists (he would not be guilty under today's rules). And even that infringement is something that they had informed the UCI they were going to do 'after the Dauphine'.

It's not exactly Operacion Puerto, is it? It's barely even Chaingate.

The TUE was for the 29th June, you say 'after the dauphine' some would say 'on the eve of the Tour'

I'm assuming at this stage you accept Wiggins was using triamcinolone out of competition, that it was triamcinolone in the jiffy bag and Sky have lied about it and thrown Freeman out of if, not under the bus.


(wish it was EPO - wouldn't have to spell check it every time :oops: )

tailwindhome

Blazing Saddles wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Twitter in full effect

A retweet by Ross, of Digger pointing out an article by Stokes all about Lawton (he "exposed team sky" dontchaknow)

https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status ... 1474205696

At least he hasn't tweeted what he claimed over the weekend, in the Asylum.

Digger is a gem.

He's party to confessions made in private apparently