JiffyGate....No Charges!!

slowmart

MP's holding third parties to account based on a subjective ethical threshold, mmmmmmmm

Vino'sGhost

Hahahah let the deniers deny.

Wiggins is a cheat.

philbar72

Blazing Saddles wrote:

So, the CMS committee reach an agenda fitting, speculative conclusion, after finding that no rules were broken.
Have I got that about right?

that's what I'm reading.

veronese68

Slowmart wrote:

MP's holding third parties to account based on a subjective ethical threshold, mmmmmmmm

My thoughts entirely, MPs preaching to others about ethics. :roll:

Vino'sGhost

Veronese68 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

MP's holding third parties to account based on a subjective ethical threshold, mmmmmmmm

My thoughts entirely, MPs preaching to others about ethics. :roll:

It doesnt mean they’re wrong though does it.

twotoebenny

Nor does it make them right, ethics by definition can be subjective! It's a sh1te argument.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

MP's holding third parties to account based on a subjective ethical threshold, mmmmmmmm

My thoughts entirely, MPs preaching to others about ethics. :roll:

It doesnt mean they’re wrong though does it.

The worrying thing is that it doesn't mean they are right, either.
I mean, we don't really know, so we'll just guess, while trying to makes ourselves relevant with our answer.

Is that the sound of tax payers money being flush down the toilet, I hear?

Vino'sGhost

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Nor does it make them right, ethics by definition can be subjective! It's a sh1te argument.

It further reinforces what some of us already know and what some of us deny, and that is that Sky and wiggins whilst campaigning under a banner of whiter than white are preapred to use questionable TUEs to use otherwise banned products. Whilst he might avoid being a cheat on the rules through technicality and a cynical approach, he is definitley a cheat when his actions are held up to Team Skys public stance. The public stance that they promote their brand on.

He is infact a fraud.

Pross

I haven’t read the report findings but listening to Collins he seemed quite keen to point out their concerns related to the potential for misuse of medicine in sport in general rather than specifically being about Wiggins and Sky. The reporting seems to suggest otherwise. There does seem to be a certain amount of use of parliamentary privilege to say things that aren’t necessarily backed by solid evidence.

nozzac

Well it has to be subjective because evidence that should have been there, wasn't and that's Sky's fault for not keeping (or possibly destroying/hiding) proper records.

The committee have had access what is probably going to be the best evidence we're gonna get on this and they've come to the conclusion that whilst they have no prima facia evidence of outright rule-breaking, it appears to them that the TUE was being abused and that it's not unlikely that there was some actual rule-breaking re: the jiffy bag but a suspicious set of circumstances has meant the evidence to know for sure isn't available.

Yes it's an opinion but it's an educated one. I sincerely don't want to believe it. I support British sportsmen and wanted to believe Sky was the team to finally stop the doping crap but I'm really struggling to hold onto to all that now.

Vino'sGhost

NozzaC wrote:

Well it has to be subjective because evidence that should have been there, wasn't and that's Sky's fault for not keeping (or possibly destroying/hiding) proper records.

The committee have had access what is probably going to be the best evidence we're gonna get on this and they've come to the conclusion that whilst they have no prima facia evidence of outright rule-breaking, it appears to them that the TUE was being abused and that it's not unlikely that there was some actual rule-breaking re: the jiffy bag but a suspicious set of circumstances has meant the evidence to know for sure isn't available.

Yes it's an opinion but it's an educated one. I sincerely don't want to believe it. I support British sportsmen and wanted to believe Sky was the team to finally stop the doping crap but I'm really struggling to hold onto to all that now.

I think that is a very good summary, I’m not too bothered about doping if they get caught they shouild be banned. Its the hypocricy that gets me.

twotoebenny

Vino'sGhost wrote:

NozzaC wrote:

Well it has to be subjective because evidence that should have been there, wasn't and that's Sky's fault for not keeping (or possibly destroying/hiding) proper records.

The committee have had access what is probably going to be the best evidence we're gonna get on this and they've come to the conclusion that whilst they have no prima facia evidence of outright rule-breaking, it appears to them that the TUE was being abused and that it's not unlikely that there was some actual rule-breaking re: the jiffy bag but a suspicious set of circumstances has meant the evidence to know for sure isn't available.

Yes it's an opinion but it's an educated one. I sincerely don't want to believe it. I support British sportsmen and wanted to believe Sky was the team to finally stop the doping crap but I'm really struggling to hold onto to all that now.

I think that is a very good summary, I’m not too bothered about doping if they get caught they shouild be banned. Its the hypocricy that gets me.

Yeah your not one for hypocrisy eh?

Vino'sGhost

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

NozzaC wrote:

Well it has to be subjective because evidence that should have been there, wasn't and that's Sky's fault for not keeping (or possibly destroying/hiding) proper records.

The committee have had access what is probably going to be the best evidence we're gonna get on this and they've come to the conclusion that whilst they have no prima facia evidence of outright rule-breaking, it appears to them that the TUE was being abused and that it's not unlikely that there was some actual rule-breaking re: the jiffy bag but a suspicious set of circumstances has meant the evidence to know for sure isn't available.

Yes it's an opinion but it's an educated one. I sincerely don't want to believe it. I support British sportsmen and wanted to believe Sky was the team to finally stop the doping crap but I'm really struggling to hold onto to all that now.

I think that is a very good summary, I’m not too bothered about doping if they get caught they shouild be banned. Its the hypocricy that gets me.

Yeah your not one for hypocrisy eh?

Awwwwwww are you feeling bruised xxx

nozzac

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I think that is a very good summary, I’m not too bothered about doping if they get caught they shouild be banned. Its the hypocricy that gets me.

I AM bothered by doping and cheating in general. And to a certain extent, that we' re all hot and bothered by asthma drugs is actually a good sign - at least it's not EPO and T anymore.

In the scheme of things, if this is the worst Sky have done, then it's not that terrible. It's just really disappointing. I do believe they set it up with the right ethics but it looks like the pressure of competition and the bubble of cycling got to them, like it seems to get to everyone eventually, and they moved into the grey areas that really aren't that grey when you take a step back.

I don't think they're gonna "get caught". I this is likely it, unless some whistle-blower comes out of the woodwork. My gut reaction is that there isn't enough evidence to start stripping titles but some changes will be made re: British Cycling and Sky, the black clouds will disperse but Sky's reputation will be tarnished for the foreseeable future.

twotoebenny

Vino'sGhost wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

NozzaC wrote:

Well it has to be subjective because evidence that should have been there, wasn't and that's Sky's fault for not keeping (or possibly destroying/hiding) proper records.

The committee have had access what is probably going to be the best evidence we're gonna get on this and they've come to the conclusion that whilst they have no prima facia evidence of outright rule-breaking, it appears to them that the TUE was being abused and that it's not unlikely that there was some actual rule-breaking re: the jiffy bag but a suspicious set of circumstances has meant the evidence to know for sure isn't available.

Yes it's an opinion but it's an educated one. I sincerely don't want to believe it. I support British sportsmen and wanted to believe Sky was the team to finally stop the doping crap but I'm really struggling to hold onto to all that now.

I think that is a very good summary, I’m not too bothered about doping if they get caught they shouild be banned. Its the hypocricy that gets me.

Yeah your not one for hypocrisy eh?

Awwwwwww are you feeling bruised xxx

Lol, yeah mate thanks for the sentiment.

Jez mon

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Hahahah let the deniers deny.

Wiggins is a cheat.

So he's literally followed the TUE rules. It's not cheating.

If a load of MPs feel this is unethical they should petition the relevant sporting bodies to change the TUE rules.

Dorset_Boy

Dan Roan deliberately mis-reporting to fit his anti-cycling, anti-Team Sky agenda.

Damien Collins did propose that the government pass a law to make doping illegal in the UK as it is in some other countries which makes sense.

However, who is to draw the 'ethical line'? MPs certainly not.
Sky are held to standards that others have created for them (Vino's whiter than white for example).
Sure the medical records aspect is a big concern and a major failing.
DC quoting Saint David (who hasn't got on with Wiggins for years) and taking his view as gospel is a bit of a joke.

Too little emphasis on the lack of testing in major team sports, but then turkeys don't vote for Christmas...

top_bhoy

Jez mon wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Hahahah let the deniers deny.

Wiggins is a cheat.

So he's literally followed the TUE rules. It's not cheating.

If a load of MPs feel this is unethical they should petition the relevant sporting bodies to change the TUE rules.

Is it following the anti-doping regulations by administering drugs but not recording them? The bottom line is Sky's administration of drugs was pitiful hence it is inconclusive whether they followed the rules on administering drugs of all types.

The position Sky find themselves in today is as a result of their own making because it's difficult to point the finger elsewhere when you cannot state which drug you administered to your star rider on the eve of the biggest race in the cycling calendar.

Whilst I can believe Dr Freeman was a loose cannon, its difficult to believe he wasn't administering drugs and not recording them on a regular basis that word wouldn't have got back to team management or identified the situation in an audit,

supermurph09

Jez mon wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Hahahah let the deniers deny.

Wiggins is a cheat.

So he's literally followed the TUE rules. It's not cheating.

If a load of MPs feel this is unethical they should petition the relevant sporting bodies to change the TUE rules.

I think your thinking is way off here.

"The committee concluded that based on the evidence presented to it, that Wiggins “may** have been treated with triamcinolone on up to nine occasions, in and out of competition, during a four-year period. It would be hard to know what possible medical need could have required such a seemingly excessive use of this drug.”

It noted that while the substance can be used under WADA rules outside of competition, that “such frequent use of the drug, given its potential performance enhancing properties, seriously calls into question David Brailsford’s assertion that Team Sky only use medicines to treat medical need.”"

** may is a big word here, I'll accept that.

The bit in bold... Using something you do not have a need for IS a doping violation.

jimmythecuckoo

Who was the credible internal source?

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Nor does it make them right, ethics by definition can be subjective! It's a sh1te argument.

It further reinforces what some of us already know and what some of us deny, and that is that Sky and wiggins whilst campaigning under a banner of whiter than white are preapred to use questionable TUEs to use otherwise banned products. Whilst he might avoid being a cheat on the rules through technicality and a cynical approach, he is definitley a cheat when his actions are held up to Team Skys public stance. The public stance that they promote their brand on.

He is infact a fraud.

Your last point might be true, but you can't be a cheat if you don't break the rules.

DeVlaeminck

It's pretty clear the committee thinks on the balance of probabilities Sky did break the rules - as a couple of posters have mentioned if the TUEs weren't medically justified then that is a doping offence. The lack of record keeping, poor memories and stolen laptop is obviously seen as rather too convenient.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's pretty clear the committee thinks on the balance of probabilities Sky did break the rules - as a couple of posters have mentioned if the TUEs weren't medically justified then that is a doping offence. The lack of record keeping, poor memories and stolen laptop is obviously seen as rather too convenient.

Again, actually listening to Damien Green he made the point they weren’t claiming Wiggins or Sky used a TUE that wasn’t justified but their investigations found the potential for the system to be ‘ethically’ abused.

The problem with this whole thing is it is inconclusive but people on either side of the argument will try to argue the committee’s report supports their pre-conceived opinion. Most will never actually read the detail and think for themselves but will regurgitate media opinion. Piers Morgan went way beyond anything that comes out of the report when gobbing off that Wiggins is now a proven drug cheat and fraud, even the most anti-Sky / Wiggins person would struggle to support that opinion based on what the CMS committee has produced.

rick_chasey

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Who was the credible internal source?

I'd love it to be Froome, in return for a softer ride in the press.

nozzac

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's pretty clear the committee thinks on the balance of probabilities Sky did break the rules - as a couple of posters have mentioned if the TUEs weren't medically justified then that is a doping offence. The lack of record keeping, poor memories and stolen laptop is obviously seen as rather too convenient.

Again, actually listening to Damien Green he made the point they weren’t claiming Wiggins or Sky used a TUE that wasn’t justified but their investigations found the potential for the system to be ‘ethically’ abused.

The problem with this whole thing is it is inconclusive but people on either side of the argument will try to argue the committee’s report supports their pre-conceived opinion. Most will never actually read the detail and think for themselves but will regurgitate media opinion. Piers Morgan went way beyond anything that comes out of the report when gobbing off that Wiggins is now a proven drug cheat and fraud, even the most anti-Sky / Wiggins person would struggle to support that opinion based on what the CMS committee has produced.

For me the worrying parts are these, from the BBC website:

"The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season," the report said.

"This same source also states that Bradley Wiggins was using these drugs beyond the requirement for any TUE."

The report concludes that Team Sky were using the "powerful corticosteroid" triamcinolone to prepare Wiggins and "possibly others riding supporting him" for the Tour de France.

OK it's an opinion but an opinion based on getting all the evidence they possibly could, interviewing people and so on. It's a more informed opinion than I'll ever be able to form and likewise the rest of you guys too. I'm not sure why, at this point, i should disregard this informed opinion. They could be wrong. I doubt they'll ever prove anything for certain. but base on the balance of probabilities - I think they were gaming the system. Are there compelling reasons for me not to think that? I hope there are.

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Who was the credible internal source?

I'd love it to be Froome, in return for a softer ride in the press.

or his wife

kingstongraham

Just read it - there's not much new in there, apart from the fact that whoever wrote it thinks the Tour de France is one of the Classics.

Boiled down, if he needed medication, and there was medication available to him under a TUE that would also give a performance benefit, he'd be mad not to use that one. Whether that should have been available is a separate matter. If he didn't need medication (as the report authors say they believe), then it's against the rules. I've no idea.

twotoebenny

NozzaC wrote:

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's pretty clear the committee thinks on the balance of probabilities Sky did break the rules - as a couple of posters have mentioned if the TUEs weren't medically justified then that is a doping offence. The lack of record keeping, poor memories and stolen laptop is obviously seen as rather too convenient.

Again, actually listening to Damien Green he made the point they weren’t claiming Wiggins or Sky used a TUE that wasn’t justified but their investigations found the potential for the system to be ‘ethically’ abused.

The problem with this whole thing is it is inconclusive but people on either side of the argument will try to argue the committee’s report supports their pre-conceived opinion. Most will never actually read the detail and think for themselves but will regurgitate media opinion. Piers Morgan went way beyond anything that comes out of the report when gobbing off that Wiggins is now a proven drug cheat and fraud, even the most anti-Sky / Wiggins person would struggle to support that opinion based on what the CMS committee has produced.

For me the worrying parts are these, from the BBC website:

"The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season," the report said.

"This same source also states that Bradley Wiggins was using these drugs beyond the requirement for any TUE."

The report concludes that Team Sky were using the "powerful corticosteroid" triamcinolone to prepare Wiggins and "possibly others riding supporting him" for the Tour de France.

OK it's an opinion but an opinion based on getting all the evidence they possibly could, interviewing people and so on. It's a more informed opinion than I'll ever be able to form and likewise the rest of you guys too. I'm not sure why, at this point, i should disregard this informed opinion. They could be wrong. I doubt they'll ever prove anything for certain. but base on the balance of probabilities - I think they were gaming the system. Are there compelling reasons for me not to think that? I hope there are.

A few Further questions then, where are the TUEs for the others?
Are we to surmise that none of these guys were tested ever during this period? Or have somehow beat the system?
These would include stage winners Froome and Cav.
Again it's all a bit hearsay/opinion... I'd prefer more evidence before forming an opinion.

redvision

I think Teams Sky's lack of records and the 'loss' of data' is very convenient.

The report doesn't produce anything new and without those records or an actual failed test it is always going to be essentially just an informed opinion.

However, for the wider public i suspect this will be enough to condemn team sky as dopers.

The press won't let this go, and whilst i want a fair outcome, i fear this report could also influence the Froome case.
I also think it's the beginning of the end of skys sponsorship, the publicity is too negative now.

shipley

redvision wrote:

I think Teams Sky's lack of records and the 'loss' of data' is very convenient.

The report doesn't produce anything new and without those records or an actual failed test it is always going to be essentially just an informed opinion.

However, for the wider public i suspect this will be enough to condemn team sky as dopers.

The press won't let this go, and whilst i want a fair outcome, i fear this report could also influence the Froome case.
I also think it's the beginning of the end of skys sponsorship, the publicity is too negative now.

Good post and my thoughts exactly, particularly regarding sponsorship which will damage the sport as a whole.

Froome will be guilty by association (whether he is or not) and the SKY reputation is down the pan.

I’m sure many will wonder how many more SKY riders will be unearthed as asthma sufferers.