More trouble for Team SKY.
Comments
-
Veronese68 wrote:
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.
The same place as believing in fairies and Father Christmas as a kid, you want it to be the case so you believe it is. You should try it, it makes the world a better place when you believe it is exactly how you want it to be!0 -
Pross wrote: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?
I said supporting statements by Sutton and the doctor considered in conjunction with the report.
Ukad investigation suffered the same frustrations as this report, that key records were missing.
It also concluded that it was impossible to distinguish between team sky and British cycling during the first few years, so I think Suttons comments are very relevant and telling.
If the UCI investigation was so thorough why did Lappartient call for a new full investigation yesterday?0 -
Not entirely - DCMS make other allegations, most notably about using triamcinolone for purely performance enhancement reasons out of competition. According to that tweet, UCI have reviewed the TUEs, so I'm assuming that's all they looked at - was the process and verification for those TUEs correctly followed etc.Slim Boy Fat wrote:
As per iainF they already have.larkim wrote:
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 ... 78678097922015 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:
If the UCI investigation was so thorough why did Lappartient call for a new full investigation yesterday?
You mean when he said no rules were broken. You mean that statement?
David is just virtue signalling. And he's doing a poor job at it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
What else do you expect him to say? "I think the DCMS report is a pile of tosh with nothing in it. I don't think there's anything for the UCI to look at".redvision wrote:
If the UCI investigation was so thorough why did Lappartient call for a new full investigation yesterday?
Well, he *could* say that.
I bet the scope of the previous UCI investigation was a bit narrower, and didn't include the jiffybag line. THere's definitely scope for them doing "something".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 -
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?
If by public domain you mean picking out bits from news reports they found on the Internet then yes. It is actually quite comical when you read the references. I originally assumed the JTL stuff came from them interviewing him directly but it is just a summary of his Cycling News interview, I'm surprised there's no quotes from weekendcyclingfan on this forum!
The report reminds me of my GCSE geography coursework where I had decided I was going to demonstrate that my home town was a dormitory town and only used the 'research' that supported my predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately in that case the conclusions weren't accepted by everyone as gospel and it was given the mark it deserved that resulted in me dropping a grade overall.0 -
Here's a question for Redvision.
If the UCI reinvestigated and concluded there was no wrong doing and the DCMS report was largely wrong, would you accept that as truth?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
redvision wrote:If the UCI investigation was so thorough why did Lappartient call for a new full investigation yesterday?
He didn't exactly call for it, he was guided that way by Roan's leading question and was probably unaware that it had been investigated as I assume it was before he took the reins.0 -
All Lappartient said was he'd like an investigation, but it's not down to him. It was the equivalent of saying "Yeah, whatever. Speak to the hand cos the face don't care"Pross wrote:redvision wrote:If the UCI investigation was so thorough why did Lappartient call for a new full investigation yesterday?
He didn't exactly call for it, he was guided that way by Roan's leading question and was probably unaware that it had been investigated as I assume it was before he took the reins.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Pross wrote: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?
If by public domain you mean picking out bits from news reports they found on the Internet then yes. It is actually quite comical when you read the references. I originally assumed the JTL stuff came from them interviewing him directly but it is just a summary of his Cycling News interview, I'm surprised there's no quotes from weekendcyclingfan on this forum!
The report reminds me of my GCSE geography coursework where I had decided I was going to demonstrate that my home town was a dormitory town and only used the 'research' that supported my predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately in that case the conclusions weren't accepted by everyone as gospel and it was given the mark it deserved that resulted in me dropping a grade overall.
I'm thinking of the minutes of the hearings, and the written evidence obtained etc.
e.g. email exchanges between Damian Collins and Dr Freeman etc. All at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... tAnchor030
If they've used info other than that documented, I'd be surprised if they place reliance on it rather than recording it in the HoC library of documentation.
Even if the report itself is a pile of junk, at least there are records of the evidence there. e.g. Dr Freeman's assertion that flumicil in the right format wasn't available in France, that his laptop was reported stolen to the Greek police, BC and Sky at the time, the deficits in the medical records processes (having worked with medics in the past, poor record keeping doesn't particularly surprise me!) etc.
Of course, whether you believe his evidence is a different matter, but they are statements made clearly "on the record".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 -
Did anyone chase up evidence of the laptop having been reported stolen? If Sky can prove that it was then that would take away one of the big unanswered questions (unless it was stolen a few days after the Fancy Bears stuff came out!).0
-
it is not surprising given the history and Armstrong years these sort of things arise.
Bruyneel/Armstrong/uci like corruption will come to light if its there. too much pressure not too.
as of yet, all we have is debatable ethical edginess.. if that.
I'll be surprised if it goes beyond that.
but perception IS important. lessons on paperwork/ transparency and perhaps how tues are handled need looking at."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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 ... 7867809792
was the investigation carried out under this guy? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brian-cookson-calls-for-wiggins-reputation-to-be-reinstated/
also this happened once upon a time https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/lance-armstrong-uci-colluded-circ-report-cycling0 -
Bompington, I think you might be able to call 'house' now!0
-
chuuurles wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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 ... 7867809792
was the investigation carried out under this guy? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brian-cookson-calls-for-wiggins-reputation-to-be-reinstated/
also this happened once upon a time https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/lance-armstrong-uci-colluded-circ-report-cycling
Well, if that Tweet is correct it was carried out by the CADF who are independent and experts in the field so probably far better qualified for the task than some MPs (and exactly who Lappartient said should carry out an investigation) so you don't really have much of a point do you?0 -
Pross wrote:chuuurles wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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 ... 7867809792
was the investigation carried out under this guy? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brian-cookson-calls-for-wiggins-reputation-to-be-reinstated/
also this happened once upon a time https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/lance-armstrong-uci-colluded-circ-report-cycling
Well, if that Tweet is correct it was carried out by the CADF who are independent and experts in the field so probably far better qualified for the task than some MPs (and exactly who Lappartient said should carry out an investigation) so you don't really have much of a point do you?
i was asking a question, thanks for the clarification.
Second point iam still interested in. At various times in history, the UCI have been guilty of facilitating doping. What a mess.0 -
Drink!Pross wrote:Bompington, I think you might be able to call 'house' now!
We'll be sloshed before before close of business!0 -
I think his statement in his evidence would have to be a fairly bare faced lie if that were not true.Pross wrote:Did anyone chase up evidence of the laptop having been reported stolen? If Sky can prove that it was then that would take away one of the big unanswered questions (unless it was stolen a few days after the Fancy Bears stuff came out!).
Whilst I am in favour of verifying facts, I'm not sure there is much dispute that this happend. e.g. from http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.co ... l-records/Sapstead said that Dr. Freeman did keep records of what was prescribed to cyclists on his laptop, which he was required to upload to a DropBox folder. He didn’t do that and the laptop was reported to British Cycling as stolen whilst on a 2014 summer holiday in Greece.
“We believe that it was reported to the police”, said Sapstead. “We are working with Interpol to ascertain when it was reported. It was reported to British Cycling. We are unable to ascertain when Team Sky was told. There is a record at British Cycling that the theft was reported to them”.
She says she believes it was reported to the police, and confirms the record at BC that the theft was reported stolen. Though she is trying to follow up with interpol for verification (not sure why you'd need to go via interpol, surely just a call to the greek police would do).
Anyway, that seems to me to be something so readily verfiable that only an absolute clown would claim they'd reported it and be telling a complete lie. It would be easier to have made up a story that someone dropped it in the swimming pool on holiday and it was disposed of, or something else.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 -
larkim wrote:
I think his statement in his evidence would have to be a fairly bare faced lie if that were not true.Pross wrote:Did anyone chase up evidence of the laptop having been reported stolen? If Sky can prove that it was then that would take away one of the big unanswered questions (unless it was stolen a few days after the Fancy Bears stuff came out!).
Whilst I am in favour of verifying facts, I'm not sure there is much dispute that this happend. e.g. from http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.co ... l-records/Sapstead said that Dr. Freeman did keep records of what was prescribed to cyclists on his laptop, which he was required to upload to a DropBox folder. He didn’t do that and the laptop was reported to British Cycling as stolen whilst on a 2014 summer holiday in Greece.
“We believe that it was reported to the police”, said Sapstead. “We are working with Interpol to ascertain when it was reported. It was reported to British Cycling. We are unable to ascertain when Team Sky was told. There is a record at British Cycling that the theft was reported to them”.
She says she believes it was reported to the police, and confirms the record at BC that the theft was reported stolen. Though she is trying to follow up with interpol for verification (not sure why you'd need to go via interpol, surely just a call to the greek police would do).
Anyway, that seems to me to be something so readily verfiable that only an absolute clown would claim they'd reported it and be telling a complete lie. It would be easier to have made up a story that someone dropped it in the swimming pool on holiday and it was disposed of, or something else.
Yep, that certainly makes it look less damning than it has often been portrayed. I can't recall seeing anything in the CMS report saying that the theft had been reported at the time (3 years before anything came up that he might want to hide).0 -
larkim wrote:
I think his statement in his evidence would have to be a fairly bare faced lie if that were not true.Pross wrote:Did anyone chase up evidence of the laptop having been reported stolen? If Sky can prove that it was then that would take away one of the big unanswered questions (unless it was stolen a few days after the Fancy Bears stuff came out!).
Whilst I am in favour of verifying facts, I'm not sure there is much dispute that this happend. e.g. from http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.co ... l-records/Sapstead said that Dr. Freeman did keep records of what was prescribed to cyclists on his laptop, which he was required to upload to a DropBox folder. He didn’t do that and the laptop was reported to British Cycling as stolen whilst on a 2014 summer holiday in Greece.
“We believe that it was reported to the police”, said Sapstead. “We are working with Interpol to ascertain when it was reported. It was reported to British Cycling. We are unable to ascertain when Team Sky was told. There is a record at British Cycling that the theft was reported to them”.
She says she believes it was reported to the police, and confirms the record at BC that the theft was reported stolen. Though she is trying to follow up with interpol for verification (not sure why you'd need to go via interpol, surely just a call to the greek police would do).
Anyway, that seems to me to be something so readily verfiable that only an absolute clown would claim they'd reported it and be telling a complete lie. It would be easier to have made up a story that someone dropped it in the swimming pool on holiday and it was disposed of, or something else.
Like when Brailford said
'Update — so bus driver has confirmed Brad didn't go back to bus and recalled being p***** off not seeing him after he won and before he left with the bus. He's confirming this in writing and statement.'
'So our normal protocol when a rider is on the podium is that the team and other riders return to the bus and leave.
The rider on the podium would have a carer/comms guy and doc with them and then do podium — anti doping — media duties which can vary in terms of length of time taken. When finishes they then travel back alone in our dedicated 'podium car'.
'At end of Dauphine the same duties were done — team bus left and in this case there was no podium car but Tim Kerrison (Team Sky's head of athlete performance) and Rod (Ellingworth, head of performance operations at Team Sky) waited with camper (van) and took Brad to next venue at training camp in Sestriere.
'There were also other vehicles which travelled the same route with other riders and staff going to same venue. They all are together that evening.
'No one witnessed Brad having an injection. Simon Cope AND Rod both travel on same flight to the end of the race both to do logistical duties — Simon drove Shane to airport and Rod went to Sestriere. More to come from Doc.'
and then from lawton "Brailsford then called. He said he trusted Kerrison and Ellingworth with his life. He said they too said the bus had left before Wiggins completed his post-race commitments. As had the driver. He was not sure if he could send on their witness statements because they were responding to his questions without realising their statements would appear in the media."
I see precedent for Brailsford to lie about readily verfiable claims.0 -
If we were talking about Brailsford, that might be worth responding to. But we're talking about Dr Freeman here, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.chuuurles wrote:I see precedent for Brailsford to lie about readily verfiable claims.
Yes, of course people can lie. I'd just suggest that one lie which is not worth telling is that you had some interaction with the police if you didn't.
Freeman's evidence is clear an unambiguous - from http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEviden ... 68835.htmlCould you confirm for us as well when it was that you reported to the police that the laptop with Bradley Wiggins’ medical records on it had been stolen.
The laptop was stolen in August 2014, when I was on holiday in Santorini, Greece. Police reports were made in regard to the burglary in Greece at that time, and British Cycling and Team Sky were informed at that time.
If the head of UKAD goes on record saying she believes it was stolen, that's not making me doubt his statement.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 -
chuuurles wrote:I see precedent for Brailsford to lie about readily verfiable claims.
So the investigation has managed to out Brailsford as being full of bullsh!t, pretty much any cycling fan could have told you that and saved the country the expense. There have been numerous incidents over the past few years where Brailsford could have just said 'I don't know' but he is incapable of that and would rather tell an obvious lie than admit a lack of knowledge.0 -
Same story, two headlines.
Geraint Thomas: Team Sky cyclist says TUEs should be scrapped
Geraint Thomas on Select Committee Team Sky allegations: ‘I never experienced anything like that’
Guess which one is the BBC's? :P"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Same story, two headlines.
Geraint Thomas: Team Sky cyclist says TUEs should be scrapped
Geraint Thomas on Select Committee Team Sky allegations: ‘I never experienced anything like that’
Guess which one is the BBC's? :P
To be fair he does say they should get rid of them in the interview.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Same story, two headlines.
Geraint Thomas: Team Sky cyclist says TUEs should be scrapped
Geraint Thomas on Select Committee Team Sky allegations: ‘I never experienced anything like that’
Guess which one is the BBC's? :P
To be fair he does say they should get rid of them in the interview.
He's obviously keen to get rid of the pesky paperwork so they can dope in peace!0 -
People seem tremendously excited by all this when nothing has happened of any real significance.
Have I missed something here or has everything reported this week not already been in the public domain?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:People seem tremendously excited by all this when nothing has happened of any real significance.
Have I missed something here or has everything reported this week not already been in the public domain?
No, you've missed nothing. There's nothing to discuss, just the same stuff being regurgitated.
People who are bored (/boring) enough are commenting, as are a few that are at either end of the anti or pro wiggins scale.0 -
Way amazes me is that, despite nothing new being brought to the table, the general public and general media seem to think this report somehow spells the end for cycling in the UK. Nothing has changed and yet they think everything has changed.mfin wrote:TailWindHome wrote:People seem tremendously excited by all this when nothing has happened of any real significance.
Have I missed something here or has everything reported this week not already been in the public domain?
No, you've missed nothing. There's nothing to discuss, just the same stuff being regurgitated.
People who are bored (/boring) enough are commenting, as are a few that are at either end of the anti or pro wiggins scale.0 -
British cycling lay in tatters as an explosive report made damning allegations against Sky supremo Dave Brailsford. As the clouds gathered the report raised more questions and it piled on the pressure on the beleaguered boss, surely making his position untenable. Cycling chiefs called for a root and branch investigation into whether ethical lines were crossed.TailWindHome wrote:People seem tremendously excited by all this when nothing has happened of any real significance.
Have I missed something here or has everything reported this week not already been in the public domain?
Or for seasoned cycling fans, last year's hardback book has been released in paperback.Twitter: @RichN950 -
British Cycling is NOT in tatters, the rumour machine that you guys love responding to is working over time to discredit them. Let's see the proof, until then its just more of the same negative attitude of little britain wanting to destroy what has been a thrilling cycle team. It's probably the same remoaners spewing out their anguished bile. Get a grip and save your next bout of negativeness for until the evidence is presented, accepted and acted on.
The internet has become the weapon of choice to destroy whatever folks grow tired of.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0
