More trouble for Team SKY.

ademort

This story certainly won,t do Team SKY or Wiggo any favours
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -2012.html

Richmond Racer 2

Got to say that I find it extraordinary that the Select Committee comes to a decision (which moreover they leak to Lawton and the Fail) that is damaging as hell to an individual, despite neglecting to have given him the opportunity to appear in front of them.

Vino'sGhost

Seems fair enough to me.

Mikey23

Your average pleb will not be interested in the technicalities of it all and the weasel words from team sky. Unethical conduct is how i see it too. And im a team sky fanboi...

twotoebenny

"Ethical" is an horrendous argument.

salsiccia1

It looks like they gamed the system, and it's not a good look. But if anybody is equating Wiggins with 'proper' cheats like Riis, Pantani (who I note is still deified by many cycling fans), Armstrong et al then they need to have a word with themselves.

blazing_saddles

Salsiccia1 wrote:

It looks like they gamed the system, and it's not a good look. But if anybody is equating Wiggins with 'proper' cheats like Riis, Pantani (who I note is still deified by many cycling fans), Armstrong et al then they need to have a word with themselves.

Vino can often be found talking to himself.

I thought this thread was supposed to be left to die, while we used the Jiffygate one....

hdow

Politicians riding on the coat tails of athletes who have achieved something with their lives

nozzac

Yeah I'm fan of Sky and Wiggins but it doesn't look good.

On the face of it, it looks like cheating. Injections of before every major race yet most relevant doctors saying it's a strange and OTT drug to use in those circumstances, plus a drug used by previous dopers.

The whole jiffy bag thing stinks - no records or receipts to back up claim it was Fluimucil but plenty of invoices and stocks of Kenalog.

I don't want to believe it but I think if it was any other team I wouldn't even be thinking twice - I'd be thinking it was doping.

flasher

Nice that Select committees can say whatever they like with little to no proof and can never be sued due to Parliamentary Privilege.

nozzac

Flasher wrote:

Nice that Select committees can say whatever they like with little to no proof and can never be sued due to Parliamentary Privilege.

Not only nice but essential in many, many cases outside of this one. It stops them being muzzled by lawyers. I don't think we want to throw that privilege out. Seems to me they're being allowed to say what they think given what they've seen and who they've spoken to. I don't see a problem with that.

One may choose to disagree with their opinion.

salsiccia1

NozzaC wrote:

Flasher wrote:

Nice that Select committees can say whatever they like with little to no proof and can never be sued due to Parliamentary Privilege.

Not only nice but essential in many, many cases outside of this one. It stops them being muzzled by lawyers. I don't think we want to throw that privilege out. Seems to me they're being allowed to say what they think given what they've seen and who they've spoken to. I don't see a problem with that.

One may choose to disagree with their opinion.

But there's the problem: it is opinion that everyone accepts as incontrovertible fact.

debeli

Salsiccia1 wrote:

It looks like they gamed the system, and it's not a good look. But if anybody is equating Wiggins with 'proper' cheats like Riis, Pantani (who I note is still deified by many cycling fans), Armstrong et al then they need to have a word with themselves.

I quite understand this post. I am a fan of cycling and in my youth I greatly admired Pantani. I still do. Likewise Indurain, Evans, Ekimov, Contador and many other dopers.
I have long admired Wiggins, mostly for his track successes. I admit I never thought he would win a GT. But I am delighted that he did.
Nonetheless, I believe that many have long thought that Sky (and indeed British Cycling) have been sailing very close to the wind for quite a while. It is the juxtaposition of high-horse moralising and what appears to be a deeply cynical attitude to integrity and ethics that jars slightly with me.
I remain very keen on cycling and will doubtless follow it for years to come. It is not football... One does not have a "team". There are riders one likes more than others and teams one wishes well. And stages one enjoys following whoever wins.
But I do see Sky and Froome and Wiggins as tarnished now and I do still admire Pantani and I do not feel the need to have a word with myself. Others may disagree.

salsiccia1

Are you equating Wiggins/Sky with Riis, Pantani and Armstrong on an 'ethical' level? That Sky's gaming of the system is equal to rampant EPO, blood doping and testosterone use? That's the point I'm making. You admire who you like, but I'd ask you and others not to look at this as Armstrong revisited.

Vino'sGhost

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Are you equating Wiggins/Sky with Riis, Pantani and Armstrong on an 'ethical' level? That Sky's gaming of the system is equal to rampant EPO, blood doping and testosterone use? That's the point I'm making. You admire who you like, but I'd ask you and others not to look at this as Armstrong revisited.

Agreed this is more like knocking off a post office not the great train robbery

top_bhoy

From the BBC

At the request of Freeman, Sutton arranged for then British Cycling coach Simon Cope to bring the package - he claims left for him in a sealed 'jiffy-bag' - out to La Toussuire for the end of the race.

Both Cope and Sutton deny knowing what was in the package, although Sutton told the committee he believes Freeman did administer the substance in it to Wiggins after the race, adding that Freeman had told him: "Brad's been sorted."

It's difficult to see Sutton in a good light if the "Brad's been sorted" quote is in any way accurate.

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Are you equating Wiggins/Sky with Riis, Pantani and Armstrong on an 'ethical' level? That Sky's gaming of the system is equal to rampant EPO, blood doping and testosterone use? That's the point I'm making. You admire who you like, but I'd ask you and others not to look at this as Armstrong revisited.

Agreed this is more like knocking off a post office not the great train robbery

Or more like borrowing a library book that everyone agrees you did with a legitimate library card and being unable to provide any paperwork to show you returned it when someone claims you didn’t.

top_bhoy

I hear the sound of clutching straws

Vino'sGhost

Top_Bhoy wrote:

I hear the sound of clutching straws

Vino'sGhost

Hdow wrote:

Politicians riding on the coat tails of athletes who have achieved something with their lives

politicians commenting on the state of professional sport funded by uk sport and held up as a standard for others to aspire to.

Dorset_Boy

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Hdow wrote:

Politicians riding on the coat tails of athletes who have achieved something with their lives

politicians commenting on the state of professional sport funded by uk sport and held up as a standard for others to aspire to.

Do UK Sport fund Team Sky?

debeli

There is an old and slightly distasteful joke:

Man: Would you sleep with me for five million pounds.

Woman: (after some thought) Yes, I would.

Man: How about fifty?

Woman: Do you think I am no more than a common prostitute?

Man: We've established that. Now we are negotiating.

This little scenario is distasteful and judgemental and much else besides... But it illustrates up to a point the moral relativism of the Sky apologists. It is not a library book. It is not armed robbery. It is a way of winning a GT unfairly without getting caught. I absolutely see similarities between Sky and US Postal and others... I do not equate, but I see the same end and the same approach to whether rules can be bent or circumvented.
At one level, methinks the Sky lovers do protest too much.
I still love to follow racing. I still admire Evans and Vogt and Froome and Wiggins and Hinault and all the rest of them... and I still see syringes and TUE abuse wherever I look... But I do love to see a hard grind to a summit or a breakaway hoping against logic that it will prevail. It is a beautiful and ugly sport and I love it. But let's not pretend that the Belgian or the Kenyan are clean. And let's stop knighting athletes who are still competing or coaches who are still coaching. Rods and backs, methinks.

kingstongraham

Debeli wrote:

I absolutely see similarities between Sky and US Postal and others... I do not equate, but I see the same end and the same approach to whether rules can be bent or circumvented.

How is this not equating the two, when you see the same end and the same approach?

If Sky took things up to where the rules allow, then they did not cheat. If they went beyond what the rules allow, then they did cheat. I don't think there is any doubt about whether US Postal knew they were slightly over that line.

Vino'sGhost

Dorset Boy wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Hdow wrote:

Politicians riding on the coat tails of athletes who have achieved something with their lives

politicians commenting on the state of professional sport funded by uk sport and held up as a standard for others to aspire to.

Do UK Sport fund Team Sky?

you know full well the relationship between sky and BC, current and historical.

Pross

Debeli wrote:

It is a way of winning a GT unfairly without getting caught. I absolutely see similarities between Sky and US Postal and others... I do not equate, but I see the same end and the same approach to whether rules can be bent or circumvented.

No, at the moment it is still a rider being legitimately prescribed a medication for an identified condition albeit the MPs consider there is a risk it can / possibly was abused. Maybe the doctor falsified the application, maybe he didn't. There's nothing new here.

Also, you keep listing Evans when mention proven, convicted dopers. Have I missed something?

debeli

I don't mention Evans as a proven, convicted doper. He is one of many who were spotted and nurtured by the great Michele Ferrari, in his case while racing MTBs with great success. He was producing performances very, very similar to the proven dopers across very many races... albeit often as the bridesmaid rather than the bride. He was phenomenally consistent and fast during a period when he was beating known dopers I do not say he is a doper;.but I think of him when I think of dopers and I mention him for the same reason. Blame Michele Ferrari. Or blame me. I have a very high regard for Fignon, Froome, Evans, Wiggins, Indurain, Virenque, Chiappucci and many others. Some or all of them cheated. They still did things I could never dream of managing, drugs or no drugs.

argyllflyer

Top_Bhoy wrote:

From the BBC

At the request of Freeman, Sutton arranged for then British Cycling coach Simon Cope to bring the package - he claims left for him in a sealed 'jiffy-bag' - out to La Toussuire for the end of the race.

Both Cope and Sutton deny knowing what was in the package, although Sutton told the committee he believes Freeman did administer the substance in it to Wiggins after the race, adding that Freeman had told him: "Brad's been sorted."

It's difficult to see Sutton in a good light if the "Brad's been sorted" quote is in any way accurate.

I think Sutton's quotes in this documentary are illustrative of how he approached things:

https://youtu.be/J1WTw6nYSmA?t=34m55s

DeVlaeminck

Pross wrote:

Debeli wrote:

It is a way of winning a GT unfairly without getting caught. I absolutely see similarities between Sky and US Postal and others... I do not equate, but I see the same end and the same approach to whether rules can be bent or circumvented.

No, at the moment it is still a rider being legitimately prescribed a medication for an identified condition albeit the MPs consider there is a risk it can / possibly was abused. Maybe the doctor falsified the application, maybe he didn't. There's nothing new here.

Also, you keep listing Evans when mention proven, convicted dopers. Have I missed something?

Maybe but this is lifted directly from The Guardian, William Fotheringham, to me it reads as a stronger accusation than a legitimate prescription with a risk or possibility it was abused.

“From the evidence that has been received by the committee, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid [triamcinolone] was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France,” the report reads. “The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power-to-weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance-enhancing properties of this drug during the race.

They also clearly have doubts about the jiffy bag having been given information it was also Triamcinolone and given Sutton's recollections that Brad had been "sorted" which if it was triamcinolone would be an in competition offence albeit a technical one given the last stage had finished. Still if a team wants to go up to the letter of the law a technical offence is still an offence.

Pross

Having read through the Sky / BC section of the report now I’d make the following comments:

1. The whole (lack of) record keeping and oversight of it comes across very badly and I can certainly understand why people see it as ‘evidence’. Whilst it’s quite easy to debunk it in part as Freeman being incompetent at best there should have been failsafes in place and it all looks wrong.

2. I’m surprised the MPs didn’t try looking at proper research into the performance enhancing capabilities of corticosteroids and seem to have just accepted the word of a few, non-scientifically trained, ex-dopers plus one unnamed doctor. If the report was a university project I’d fail it due to lack of referencing and fact checking.

3. The conclusion in paragraph 110 seems very muddled. The say no rules were broken but that they believe the TUE was used for performance enhancement. If it was used for anything other than treating a genuine illness then it is an anti-doping violation so the statements are contradictory.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Having read through the Sky / BC section of the report now I’d make the following comments:

1. The whole (lack of) record keeping and oversight of it comes across very badly and I can certainly understand why people see it as ‘evidence’. Whilst it’s quite easy to debunk it in part as Freeman being incompetent at best there should have been failsafes in place and it all looks wrong.

2. I’m surprised the MPs didn’t try looking at proper research into the performance enhancing capabilities of corticosteroids and seem to have just accepted the word of a few, non-scientifically trained, ex-dopers plus one unnamed doctor. If the report was a university project I’d fail it due to lack of referencing and fact checking.

3. The conclusion in paragraph 110 seems very muddled. The say no rules were broken but that they believe the TUE was used for performance enhancement. If it was used for anything other than treating a genuine illness then it is an anti-doping violation so the statements are contradictory.

With part 3,I get the impression that they don’t know the process for obtaining a TUE. They seem to think it’s just a case of having a doctor’s note.

josame

Debeli wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

It looks like they gamed the system, and it's not a good look. But if anybody is equating Wiggins with 'proper' cheats like Riis, Pantani (who I note is still deified by many cycling fans), Armstrong et al then they need to have a word with themselves.

I quite understand this post. I am a fan of cycling and in my youth I greatly admired Pantani. I still do. Likewise Indurain, Evans, Ekimov, Contador and many other dopers.
I have long admired Wiggins, mostly for his track successes. I admit I never thought he would win a GT. But I am delighted that he did.

Hang about /\ 'Evans' doped can I have a link please..