More trouble for Team SKY.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ok i get it, dopings fine if you can get away with it. (so long as your British)

its a confused place in here

It's not the place that is confusing you, it's your grasp of what constitutes doping under sporting law.

ademort

According to reports in the Netherlands and Belgium Tour organiser ASO are considering banning Chris Froome from participating in this years Tour if the result of the investigation into his alledged high Salbutemol levels are not known before the Tour starts on July 4th. They also go on to say they do not want a rider to start who may later be banned. Any thoughts on this. I wonder can the ASO just ban a rider even though he,s not even been proved guilty. I think the ASO is opening an ugly can of worms here.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

So it’s about the ban is it? Not about the rules?

There are some serious dual standards here Rick and also the question of people insulting intelligence. I appreciate you and many others are partisan to the point of self harm. I dare say peole can cling to the rules not broken if he got a doctor to give him the tue etc etc but thats like saying rapes fine if you can weedle out of it.

Hahahahaha you think I’m pro Froome or pro Wiggins????



You cheer known dopers who refuse to admit their doping. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

I’m pretty consistent. I don’t really do much moralising about doping either way.

Either it’s doping or it’s not. Rulez are black & white. Either the authorities green light it or they don’t. Ultimately it’s a game. It’s all arbitrary anyway. Rape, to use your example (a little over the top if I may say so) isn’t arbitrary.

If if were up to me I’d ban Wiggins for making all his wins super dull and Froome for crimes against cycling asthetics. I’m no fan of either.

RichN95.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

There are some serious dual standards here Rick and also the question of people insulting intelligence. I appreciate you and many others are partisan to the point of self harm. I dare say peole can cling to the rules not broken if he got a doctor to give him the tue etc etc but thats like saying rapes fine if you can weedle out of it.

Rape is illegal though. What Wiggins has done is more like consenting homosexual sex. Some people (not me) think it is immoral and want it banned, but it's not illegal so that's that.

bompington

The thing that gets me about the "just hasn't been caught yet" brigade is the moral cowardice of it.

Because it's such a nice cushy thing to put yourself in the position where you can never be proved wrong.

Proof of guilt arrives? "You see I was right all along"
Proof of guilt doesn't arrive? "He's a cheat, it just hasn't been proved yet / has been covered up"

Win/win.

larkim

ademort wrote:

According to reports in the Netherlands and Belgium Tour organiser ASO are considering banning Chris Froome from participating in this years Tour if the result of the investigation into his alledged high Salbutemol levels are not known before the Tour starts on July 4th. They also go on to say they do not want a rider to start who may later be banned. Any thoughts on this. I wonder can the ASO just ban a rider even though he,s not even been proved guilty. I think the ASO is opening an ugly can of worms here.

I wonder if it is just a touch of sabre rattling by ASO to encourage UCI / Sky to get a move on.

I don't know what rights ASO have to be selective about who they allow in their race, tbh, but it's not unlike the position that the London Marathon takes which involves them refusing to invite athletes with proven doping history. It's their race after all, you'd expect them to have some say in the entrants they allow in.

If ASO were to do it, I'd expect the provisions to facilitate it wuold have to already exist within their rules rather than them rush through some changes as a direct response to the Froome situation.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

I don't know what rights ASO have to be selective about who they allow in their race, tbh, but it's not unlike the position that the London Marathon takes which involves them refusing to invite athletes with proven doping history. It's their race after all, you'd expect them to have some say in the entrants they allow in.

If ASO were to do it, I'd expect the provisions to facilitate it wuold have to already exist within their rules rather than them rush through some changes as a direct response to the Froome situation.

The problem they have is they have signed up to the World Tour rules. While those rules allow for riders to be excluded if they damage the image of the race, they would be on shaky ground. 1. This was all supposed to be private, 2. Froome isn't actually guilty yet and the governing body have declined to suspend him and 3. They've tried this before (Boonen) and failed and 4. Froome' presence at other races doesn't seem to be effecting them.

redvision

bompington wrote:

The thing that gets me about the "just hasn't been caught yet" brigade is the moral cowardice of it.

Because it's such a nice cushy thing to put yourself in the position where you can never be proved wrong.

Proof of guilt arrives? "You see I was right all along"
Proof of guilt doesn't arrive? "He's a cheat, it just hasn't been proved yet / has been covered up"

Win/win.

Yet many members on this forum defend sky as 'there is no proof' yet constantly claim that there is widespread doping in football.... despite no proof.

The hypocrisy is laughable.

blazing_saddles

larkim wrote:

ademort wrote:

According to reports in the Netherlands and Belgium Tour organiser ASO are considering banning Chris Froome from participating in this years Tour if the result of the investigation into his alledged high Salbutemol levels are not known before the Tour starts on July 4th. They also go on to say they do not want a rider to start who may later be banned. Any thoughts on this. I wonder can the ASO just ban a rider even though he,s not even been proved guilty. I think the ASO is opening an ugly can of worms here.

I wonder if it is just a touch of sabre rattling by ASO to encourage UCI / Sky to get a move on.

I don't know what rights ASO have to be selective about who they allow in their race, tbh, but it's not unlike the position that the London Marathon takes which involves them refusing to invite athletes with proven doping history. It's their race after all, you'd expect them to have some say in the entrants they allow in.

If ASO were to do it, I'd expect the provisions to facilitate it wuold have to already exist within their rules rather than them rush through some changes as a direct response to the Froome situation.

The case should definitely have passed into UCI's hands before the start of the Tour.
In which case somebody could end up in court.

Bottom line is that even if Froome gets a year off, his results between Vuelta and start of ban would be valid.
The ASO don't need to be concerned on that score.
If they do choose to go down that line, it's rubber stamping bans for pending AADs, which ain't in any rule book.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

bompington wrote:

The thing that gets me about the "just hasn't been caught yet" brigade is the moral cowardice of it.

Because it's such a nice cushy thing to put yourself in the position where you can never be proved wrong.

Proof of guilt arrives? "You see I was right all along"
Proof of guilt doesn't arrive? "He's a cheat, it just hasn't been proved yet / has been covered up"

Win/win.

Yet many members on this forum defend sky as 'there is no proof' yet constantly claim that there is widespread doping in football.... despite no proof.

The hypocrisy is laughable.

Folks on here tend to attack the general principle that there is little or no testing in football and question why a super rich sport can't be arsed to fund proper testing, rather than specific players.
On the other hand, you defend the need for testing, arguing that there is no doping in football.
All while you attack specific cyclists, who haven't failed a test or been sanctioned, as dopers.

Now, that is laughable hypocrisy

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

redvision wrote:

bompington wrote:

The thing that gets me about the "just hasn't been caught yet" brigade is the moral cowardice of it.

Because it's such a nice cushy thing to put yourself in the position where you can never be proved wrong.

Proof of guilt arrives? "You see I was right all along"
Proof of guilt doesn't arrive? "He's a cheat, it just hasn't been proved yet / has been covered up"

Win/win.

Yet many members on this forum defend sky as 'there is no proof' yet constantly claim that there is widespread doping in football.... despite no proof.

The hypocrisy is laughable.

Folks on here tend to attack the general principle that there is little or no testing in football and question why a super rich sport can't be arsed to fund proper testing, rather than specific players.
On the other hand, you defend the need for testing, arguing that there is no doping in football.
All while you attack specific cyclists, who haven't failed a test or been sanctioned, as dopers.

Now, that is laughable hypocrisy

There is drug testing in football and there is absolutely no indication of any widespread doping.

There is a proven history of doping in cycling.
There is also the recent independent report specifically looking in to team sky which has produced circumstantial evidence to suggest performance enhancing drugs have been used... albeit through a loophole (via Tues).

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

There is drug testing in football and there is absolutely no indication of any widespread doping.

There is indication - Fuentes's links to various Spanish clubs, Juventus's doctor from the mid 90s being jailed for doping them to start off with. Maybe not endemic, but not negligible either.

As for the drug testing, last season a Premiership player was tested on average just 2.23 times. Recently I heard Robbie Savage, who played first team football for 17 years say he got tested 20 times in his career.

Richmond Racer 2

Dont the clubs also claim responsibility for updating ADAMS for their players (and I don't mean Tony)

Which is very convenient as when a player..er...fouls up, the club waves and said, sorry was us your honour, and just cops a fine

blazing_saddles

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Dont the clubs also claim responsibility for updating ADAMS for their players (and I don't mean Tony)

Which is very convenient as when a player..er...fouls up, the club waves and said, sorry was us your honour, and just cops a fine

Given how rarely players get tested, how recently we have had a number of clubs getting pinged for ADAMS infractions and how puny the fines are should they get caught, one wonders how many clubs actually bother to do the paper work.
Meanwhile, for the rest of the sporting world who have to deal with ADAMS themselves, it's usually a two year holiday.

It's as if the clubs act as Swiss bankers for their rich clients.

redvision

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

There is drug testing in football and there is absolutely no indication of any widespread doping.

There is indication - Fuentes's links to various Spanish clubs, Juventus's doctor from the mid 90s being jailed for doping them to start off with. Maybe not endemic, but not negligible either.

As for the drug testing, last season a Premiership player was tested on average just 2.23 times. Recently I heard Robbie Savage, who played first team football for 17 years say he got tested 20 times in his career.

Exactly. So there are tests in football.
It may be that there aren't the number there are in other sports but the tests which are done offer no indication of widespread doping.

And hang on, so Fuentes allegedly indicated doping in football and that is enough for you to determine it is fact.... yet you defend team sky despite the report indicating they were using performance enhancing drugs via TUES... :roll:

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

Exactly. So there are tests in football.
It may be that there aren't the number there are in other sports but the tests which are done offer no indication of widespread doping.

And hang on, so Fuentes allegedly indicated doping in football and that is enough for you to determine it is fact.... yet you defend team sky despite the report indicating they were using performance enhancing drugs via TUES... :roll:

Right, talking of defending, lets turn this back in your direction.
1)Team Sky responsible for TUEs.
2)Man City, West Ham etc responsible for ADAMS.
Which of the above options is actually guilty of a doping violation under current rules?

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Right, talking of defending, lets turn this back in your direction.
1)Team Sky responsible for TUEs.
2)Man City, West Ham etc responsible for ADAMS.
Which of the above options is actually guilty of a doping violation under current rules?

So a football team fined for failing to inform the doping authorities of players whereabouts constitutes doping??

Yes it is a violation of the rules but don't forget, this is also common in cycling... Lizzie Diegnan, Bjorg Lambrecht etc spring to mind.

And yes, the report suggested team sky were directly responsible for issuing performance enhancing drugs to their riders when not medically needed, albeit via TUES.

bompington

redvision wrote:

the report suggested...

Weasel word alert!!!

iainf72

redvision wrote:

And yes, the report suggested team sky were directly responsible for issuing performance enhancing drugs to their riders when not medically needed.

But for clarity, never in violation of the anti-doping rules, right?

redvision

bompington wrote:

redvision wrote:

the report suggested...

Weasel word alert!!!

:roll:

redvision

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

And yes, the report suggested team sky were directly responsible for issuing performance enhancing drugs to their riders when not medically needed.

But for clarity, never in violation of the anti-doping rules, right?

At the moment. However, If the GMC are investigating whether there has been medical malpractice by issuing medication which was not needed for health ailments then that would be an anti doping violation.

But again, the report alone is more evidence than there is to suggest widespread doping in football.

inseine

redvision wrote:

So a football team fined for failing to inform the doping authorities of players whereabouts constitutes doping??

Yes it is a violation of the rules but don't forget, this is also common in cycling... Lizzie Diegnan, Bjorg Lambrecht etc spring to mind.

And yes, the report suggested team sky were directly responsible for issuing performance enhancing drugs to their riders when not medically needed, albeit via TUES.

Yes
Athletes who fail to comply with the athlete whereabouts information requirements may incur anti-doping rule violations and subsequent sanctions.

iainf72

redvision wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

redvision wrote:

And yes, the report suggested team sky were directly responsible for issuing performance enhancing drugs to their riders when not medically needed.

But for clarity, never in violation of the anti-doping rules, right?

At the moment. However, If the GMC are investigating whether there has been medical malpractice by issuing medication which was not needed for health ailments then that would be an anti doping violation.

Only in the case where a TUE wasn't approved. So they could say he shouldn't have handed out something but if there was a TUE in place, it's not going to be a violation. The GMC aren't going to love his shoddy record keeping though.

blazing_saddles

For someone with such a love of football, redvision doesn't half like moving the goalposts.

Anyhow, nobody on here has said football has a widespread doping problem, just that it might, due to the minimal testing and casual attitude towards testing in general.

Nevertheless, the German's are a bit more sceptical:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 39238.html

A recent article:

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/i ... ng-problem

Just to be fair and for balance, this one takes the redvision line:

https://scroll.in/field/872596/russian- ... -world-cup

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

For someone with such a love of football, redvision doesn't half like moving the goalposts.

Anyhow, nobody on here has said football has a widespread doping problem, just that it might, due to the minimal testing and casual attitude towards testing in general.

Nevertheless, the German's are a bit more sceptical:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 39238.html

A recent article:

https://www.thesportsman.com/articles/i ... ng-problem

Just to be fair and for balance, this one takes the redvision line:

https://scroll.in/field/872596/russian- ... -world-cup

You can't use Russia as an example. They pretty much dope in every sport.

The other thread regarding drugs in sport has many posts about widespread doping in football.

And again the links you post are just speculation. They are not as informed as say an independent report in to doping in a cycling team.

If numerous positive tests come from a particular club or many in a league i will accept that. But the fact is there isn't.

What there is is a report which states team sky used performance enhancing drugs via tues, without a medical need.

inseine

Redvision, so you ever post on pro race other than to talk about doping?

iainf72

redvision wrote:

What there is is a report which states team sky used performance enhancing drugs via tues, without a medical need.

Would there be a report saying that with parliamentary privilege?

I would suggest not.

Vino'sGhost

its Like dealing with rule quoting minor council officials.

There’s no point pointing out the bleeding obvious even if they cared they haven’t the intellect to grasp the point.

Dorset_Boy

Sadly much of the evidence of widespread doping in football is in the Fuentes blood bags that the spanish authorities refuse to analyse. Also one of the top Spanish clubs have admitted to a systematic doping programme at that time.

Then there's all the injections players seem to regularly have......

And the notification to the squad as soon as a tester arrives at the training ground, so glowing players 'disappear'.....

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

its Like dealing with rule quoting minor council officials.

There’s no point pointing out the bleeding obvious even if they cared they haven’t the intellect to grasp the point.

The CMS committee, defined.