More trouble for Team SKY.
Comments
-
That is rampant abuse right there!apriliarider wrote:Abuse of TUE's - not by the numbers that the UCI have on their website, how many riders is this for 400+ ??? or does it include all elite riders regardless of category, gender etc -
Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 200 -
There's about 1300 riders on the list. It includes every male rider on World Tour or Pro-continental teams.apriliarider wrote:Abuse of TUE's - not by the numbers that the UCI have on their website, how many riders is this for 400+ ??? or does it include all elite riders regardless of category, gender etc -
The criteria is:
Road/ Route
Professional Men Road Riders
Top ranked Women Riders
Track /Piste
Top ranked Riders - Men and Women
MTB:
Top ranked Riders - Men and Women
Cyclo-Cross:
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women
BMX:
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women
Para-Cycling
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women - Track & Road
Other Riders
As determined by the UCI Anti-Doping Commission, the UCI and the CADF.
The full list of riders can be found here: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Clea ... eutral.pdfTwitter: @RichN950 -
0
-
RichN95 wrote:
There's about 1200 riders on the list. It includes every male rider on World Tour or Pro-continental teams.apriliarider wrote:Abuse of TUE's - not by the numbers that the UCI have on their website, how many riders is this for 400+ ??? or does it include all elite riders regardless of category, gender etc -
The criteria is:
Road/ Route
Professional Men Road Riders
Top ranked Women Riders
Track /Piste
Top ranked Riders - Men and Women
MTB:
Top ranked Riders - Men and Women
Cyclo-Cross:
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women
BMX:
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women
Para-Cycling
Top Ranked Riders - Men and Women - Track & Road
Other Riders
As determined by the UCI Anti-Doping Commission, the UCI and the CADF.
The full list of riders can be found here: http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Clea ... eutral.pdf
Thank you Rich - damn this bloody evidence - 0.0167% of the riders are bloody cheats and I demand satisfaction, endless apologies, lots of hand wringing, tears on TV etc etc etc0 -
Yet we read stories like this about football http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43032571redvision wrote:Pross wrote:
I'm more cynical of the anti-doping efforts in football and yet you regularly defend that sport.
I do defend football because I have yet to see anything that suggests a widespread doping culture as many on here claim.
However, if a report like this was published on doping in football, especially when considered in conjunction with personal testimony from former doctors employed by the team and coaches closely connected to the team, then i would be very very concerned.
And yet English football is very well tested compared to the rest of Europe.
I'm sure if these journalists did a little more digging into football they could turn up some things much more dodgy than what they are hounding Sky for. However, until someone provides some factual evidence, just like in cycling, it's not fair to say there is a doping problem in football.0 -
And the sudden reduction in 2010 is almost certainly due to salbutamol no longer requiring a TUE from 2010.0
-
And Dr Freeman came from football - if he's a rogue operator, maybe he brought it with him?0
-
Well, that's actually the real story here isn't it? - the fact that these journalists are very obviously not doing much digging at all into football, at the same time as they're swarming like flies around cycling.Slim Boy Fat wrote:I'm sure if these journalists did a little more digging into football they could turn up some things much more dodgy than what they are hounding Sky for. However, until sometimes provides some factual evidence, just like in cycling, it's not fair to say there is a doping problem in football.
Which makes it very convenient for any one-eyed footie fan who wants to apply the same painstaking, unbiased analysis to the subject as he does to the penalty the ref's just awarded against his team.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:Yet we read stories like this about football http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43032571
And yet English football is very well tested compared to the rest of Europe.
I'm sure if these journalists did a little more digging into football they could turn up some things much more dodgy than what they are hounding Sky for. However, until sometimes provides some factual evidence, just like in cycling, it's not fair to say there is a doping problem in football.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason there aren't more tests in football is because there are no real suspicions of a doping culture, asides from a few minds of a few bike radar members??
As i keep saying, match fixing is a far more likely concern for the sport.
Anyway, you keep on about factual evidence, dont forget, armstrong never failed a test....he was charged through statements and testimonies of former teammates, physios, etc etc.0 -
BINGO!redvision wrote:armstrong never failed a test0 -
(Doping thread cliche bingo, one of my favourites)0
-
bompington wrote:
BINGO!redvision wrote:armstrong never failed a test
People were asking for facts0 -
How is any of that factual evidence of doping at Team Sky?redvision wrote:Anyway, you keep on about factual evidence, dont forget, armstrong never failed a test....he was charged through statements and testimonies of former teammates, physios, etc etc.0 -
Except that there is at least some evidence, if not conclusive proof, that he did. And, of course, there wasn't a test for EPO at the time, unlike the things that Sky are being accused of.redvision wrote:bompington wrote:
BINGO!redvision wrote:armstrong never failed a test
People were asking for facts
But my point is that when people come out with the "Armstrong never failed a test" cliche, they usually mean it to invert the logic and imply that anyone who has never failed a test must therefore be as guilty as him.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How is any of that factual evidence of doping at Team Sky?redvision wrote:Anyway, you keep on about factual evidence, dont forget, armstrong never failed a test....he was charged through statements and testimonies of former teammates, physios, etc etc.
It isn't. But you asked for factual evidence regarding team sky and doping and i was merely pointing out that factual evidence such as a failed test isn't always needed when you have witness testimony and statements from former colleagues.0 -
redvision wrote:Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason there aren't more tests in football is because there are no real suspicions of a doping culture, asides from a few minds of a few bike radar members??
As i keep saying, match fixing is a far more likely concern for the sport.
Brilliant "we don't think there's a problem so we won't bother looking". I think tennis took that approach tooredvision wrote:Anyway, you keep on about factual evidence, dont forget, armstrong never failed a test....he was charged through statements and testimonies of former teammates, physios, etc etc.
Oh, the beauty of Armstrong - you can use anything he ever said or did to 'prove' others who do or say the same must be dopers. Has it ever occurred to you that all the cyclists who never doped also never failed a drugs test? It's a perfectly valid comment when a clean athlete is accused of doping with no evidence. Where is are the testimonies in this case? Once you get Geraint Thomas and his wife saying how they saw Wiggins swigging litre bottles of Kenalog in his hotel room then there's starting to be a parallel.
The above post really highlights some double standards on your part.0 -
Pross wrote:Oh, the beauty of Armstrong - you can use anything he ever said or did to 'prove' others who do or say the same must be dopers. Has it ever occurred to you that all the cyclists who never doped also never failed a drugs test? It's a perfectly valid comment when a clean athlete is accused of doping with no evidence. Where is are the testimonies in this case? Once you get Geraint Thomas and his wife saying how they saw Wiggins swigging litre bottles of Kenalog in his hotel room then there's starting to be a parallel.
The above post really highlights some double standards on your part.
And ignorance on your behalf. The report is damning yet you and others dispute it. Are you more informed than those who wrote it and had access to details not available to the public? Have you or anyone offered any plausible reason for data (which the report implies could prove doping occured) being 'lost'?
Former doctors and coaches have admitted the TUE system was abused.
The report would not have made the allegations had it not found compelling evidence, even if it is circumstantial.0 -
Can I just be clear - do those who are convinced he doped think he doped a) by taking triamcinolone in competition under a TUE that he shouldn't have got, or b) by taking something completely illegal as well?
If b) then fair do's, but what points towards that? If a) then really, all this over that?0 -
redvision wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:redvision wrote:Pross wrote:redvision wrote:The report echoed the UKAD investigation in that it was hampered by sky losing the records.
It is a massive coincidence given the circumstances and the suspicion around the team for years now.
On top of that you have former sky coaches who admit the team played the TUE system - which effectively supports the reports claims that riders were taking medication under a TUE which they did not need.
I bet Michele Ferrari is thinking to himself, if only i thought of losing the records i kept!
You've said this a couple of times now so I've re-read the DCMS report and cannot see any reference to it in there. Could you point me to the relevant section please?
I was referring to comments by Shane Sutton and Dr Fabio Bartalucci (one of the teams former doctors).
So, comments in the press, rather than the document.
Dr Fabio Bartalucci you say?Bartalucci has often treated riders with asthma during Grand Tours but struggles to understand why Team Sky increased Chris Froome's use of a salbutamol inhaler instead of requesting a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the UCI to use Triamcinolone.
Kind of shot yourself in the foot there....
How is that shooting myself in the foot?
He confirmed that team sky would often use those drugs. That's the whole point of this debate. The team employed doctors who freely prescribed such medication and the report claims that these medications were not needed for medical reasons.
Shane Sutton openly admitted the TUE boundaries were pushed to the limit.
Woosh.
The sound of the goalposts being moved again.
Okay.
So, you have conveniently ditched the good doctor and a bevy of Sky coaches, for just good old Shane.
Well, I for one will not criticise SS. He's been treated despicably.
Especially by the likes of Dan Roan and Matt Lawton, who previously poured ridicule and scorn on his account of the goings on at BC.
A few short months later and he has become the cornerstone source of their next hatchet job.
Nuclear irony alert."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Can I just be clear - do those who are convinced he doped think he doped a) by taking triamcinolone in competition under a TUE that he shouldn't have got, or b) by taking something completely illegal as well?
If b) then fair do's, but what points towards that? If a) then really, all this over that?
In my opinion, from what i have read in the report and supporting statements (eg Sutton), he cheated by exploiting the TUE system by taking a medication which has a performance gain when he did not medically need it.
I also believe they may well have used completely banned substances but the data proving this was lost.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but all of the evidence that the select committee used is in the public domain? SO whatever the report actually says, we can scrutinise all of the evidence that they reviewed in coming to their conclusions can we not?redvision wrote:Pross wrote:Oh, the beauty of Armstrong - you can use anything he ever said or did to 'prove' others who do or say the same must be dopers. Has it ever occurred to you that all the cyclists who never doped also never failed a drugs test? It's a perfectly valid comment when a clean athlete is accused of doping with no evidence. Where is are the testimonies in this case? Once you get Geraint Thomas and his wife saying how they saw Wiggins swigging litre bottles of Kenalog in his hotel room then there's starting to be a parallel.
The above post really highlights some double standards on your part.
And ignorance on your behalf. The report is damning yet you and others dispute it. Are you more informed than those who wrote it and had access to details not available to the public? Have you or anyone offered any plausible reason for data (which the report implies could prove doping occured) being 'lost'?
Former doctors and coaches have admitted the TUE system was abused.
The report would not have made the allegations had it not found compelling evidence, even if it is circumstantial.
On the points where facts are missing, its inevitable that we'll form our own conclusions. Was the laptop lost deliberately or stolen? Were the medical records just omitted in error or deliberately withheld? Was the doctor too ill to attend or was he faking it? Is the anonymous letter a series of facts or heresay?
We can go round in circles here - bottom line for me is that the fact that the DCMS select committee has made balance of probabilities judgements based on absences of facts. I think they got the balance wrong, and others think they got it right.
Only proper investigations will resolve that, or at least highlight where they can't resolve the issues because of absences of verifiable facts. I hope the UCI does one quickly and effectively. That report, for me, would likely be a definitive statement on the matter.2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #4s)
2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)0 -
redvision wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Can I just be clear - do those who are convinced he doped think he doped a) by taking triamcinolone in competition under a TUE that he shouldn't have got, or b) by taking something completely illegal as well?
If b) then fair do's, but what points towards that? If a) then really, all this over that?
In my opinion, from what i have read in the report and supporting statements (eg Sutton), he cheated by exploiting the TUE system by taking a medication which has a performance gain when he did not medically need it.
I also believe they may well have used completely banned substances but the data proving this was lost.
We know.
To think, it was Fancy Bears who started this ball rolling.
Taking of Fancy Bears...
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/footbal ... ancy-Bears"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I thought it was entirely a) and I think that is just the team bending the rules to the extremes in pursuit of marginal gains. Rules were bent but not broken as I see it. Their biggest mistake was making such a big song and dance about being clean and taking a moral high ground which now looks shaky.KingstonGraham wrote:Can I just be clear - do those who are convinced he doped think he doped a) by taking triamcinolone in competition under a TUE that he shouldn't have got, or b) by taking something completely illegal as well?
If b) then fair do's, but what points towards that? If a) then really, all this over that?
Then there was this:
Not sure where any evidence of this has come from but I accept others on here follow these things a lot more closely than I do.redvision wrote:I also believe they may well have used completely banned substances but the data proving this was lost.0 -
-
redvision wrote:Pross wrote:Oh, the beauty of Armstrong - you can use anything he ever said or did to 'prove' others who do or say the same must be dopers. Has it ever occurred to you that all the cyclists who never doped also never failed a drugs test? It's a perfectly valid comment when a clean athlete is accused of doping with no evidence. Where is are the testimonies in this case? Once you get Geraint Thomas and his wife saying how they saw Wiggins swigging litre bottles of Kenalog in his hotel room then there's starting to be a parallel.
The above post really highlights some double standards on your part.
And ignorance on your behalf. The report is damning yet you and others dispute it. Are you more informed than those who wrote it and had access to details not available to the public? Have you or anyone offered any plausible reason for data (which the report implies could prove doping occured) being 'lost'?
Former doctors and coaches have admitted the TUE system was abused.
The report would not have made the allegations had it not found compelling evidence, even if it is circumstantial.
There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that even comes close to the testimony of the Andreus or Emma O'Reilly in the Armstrong case. As eluded to above, a rider close to Wiggins coming out and saying they saw him doping would be another matter. They didn't even speak directly to Wiggins himself for this inquiry. You keep saying former coaches and doctors have admitted the TUE system was abused and yet Sutton didn't say that to the committee and the doctor in question has only made comments in the press. By contrast there have been investigations by UKAD and the UCI that have found no rules to have been broken. Why do you feel a group of politicians with no background in cycling and a somewhat unusual selection of witnesses are better qualified in this matter than the national anti-doping agency and the sport's governing body?0 -
Jez mon wrote:redvision wrote:I also believe they may well have used completely banned substances but the data proving this was lost.
And I also believe Jet fuel doesn't melt steal beams.
Yeah, but when you add nano-thermite into the mix it's a different kettle of fish.
Don't be a Sheeple Jez.
[Unsurprisingly arch asshat Digger is a truther]Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
As per iainF they already have.larkim wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but all of the evidence that the select committee used is in the public domain? SO whatever the report actually says, we can scrutinise all of the evidence that they reviewed in coming to their conclusions can we not?redvision wrote:Pross wrote:Oh, the beauty of Armstrong - you can use anything he ever said or did to 'prove' others who do or say the same must be dopers. Has it ever occurred to you that all the cyclists who never doped also never failed a drugs test? It's a perfectly valid comment when a clean athlete is accused of doping with no evidence. Where is are the testimonies in this case? Once you get Geraint Thomas and his wife saying how they saw Wiggins swigging litre bottles of Kenalog in his hotel room then there's starting to be a parallel.
The above post really highlights some double standards on your part.
And ignorance on your behalf. The report is damning yet you and others dispute it. Are you more informed than those who wrote it and had access to details not available to the public? Have you or anyone offered any plausible reason for data (which the report implies could prove doping occured) being 'lost'?
Former doctors and coaches have admitted the TUE system was abused.
The report would not have made the allegations had it not found compelling evidence, even if it is circumstantial.
On the points where facts are missing, its inevitable that we'll form our own conclusions. Was the laptop lost deliberately or stolen? Were the medical records just omitted in error or deliberately withheld? Was the doctor too ill to attend or was he faking it? Is the anonymous letter a series of facts or heresay?
We can go round in circles here - bottom line for me is that the fact that the DCMS select committee has made balance of probabilities judgements based on absences of facts. I think they got the balance wrong, and others think they got it right.
Only proper investigations will resolve that, or at least highlight where they can't resolve the issues because of absences of verifiable facts. I hope the UCI does one quickly and effectively. That report, for me, would likely be a definitive statement on the matter.
https://twitter.com/petercossins/status ... 78678097920 -
redvision wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
How is any of that factual evidence of doping at Team Sky?redvision wrote:Anyway, you keep on about factual evidence, dont forget, armstrong never failed a test....he was charged through statements and testimonies of former teammates, physios, etc etc.
It isn't. But you asked for factual evidence regarding team sky and doping and i was merely pointing out that factual evidence such as a failed test isn't always needed when you have witness testimony and statements from former colleagues.
Oh FFS. Don't we know what "evidence" means yet? It includes, by way of example, statements, testimonies etc etc. Oh, confessions too. They tend to carry the most weight. There was a lot of evidence that Armstrong doped. There is some evidence that Sky may have been doing something dodgy, but it seems to have been concluded by UKAD and others that there is nowhere near enough to prove a case. The select committee appear to think they know better because of some "anonymous source". Its pretty hard to respond to that.0
