More trouble for Team SKY.

Vino'sGhost

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?

If the doctor falsified the application it’s cheating and fraud

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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?

If the doctor falsified the application it’s cheating and fraud

I agree completely but see my point above, the MPs concluded that the rules weren’t broken but that the TUE was used for performance enhancing. Those two conclusions cannot both be the case as it’s an anti-doping violation to falsify the TUE application.

The biggest issue here is that an inquiry by a group of unqualified politicians who are not fully versed in the anti-doping system have reached a conclusion that differs from that of the actual anti-doping authorities but their opinion is being held by some as more definitive. I’m still not clear if Wiggins was invited to give evidence or not, the report only says he was invited to provide a written response.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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?

If the doctor falsified the application it’s cheating and fraud

If you read the post, you will see Pross has addressed that possibility.

debeli

josame wrote:

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

I thought I had answered this above.

I apologise if my comments offend. I do not in any way suggest that a mallard-looking bird who waddles and quacks is a mallard. It may be a dove or even an ostrich.

I am intrigued by the known link between Michele Ferrari and several pro cyclists who produced very impressive figures in the naughty (or slightly naughtier) years.

But I do not.want my unhelpful insinuations to divert this thread and I shall now duck out.

So to speak.

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

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.

Yes but both Rasmussen and Jaksche have spoken about how team doctors (Leinders in Rasmussen's case) fraudulently got them a TUe for the same drug to aid recovery so the process wasn't beyond abuse.

I agree with Pross this report is contradictory, they talk about crossing an ethical line but by implying gaining a TUE for performance reasons the accusation is actually going beyond that.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes but both Rasmussen and Jaksche have spoken about how team doctors (Leinders in Rasmussen's case) fraudulently got them a TUe for the same drug to aid recovery so the process wasn't beyond abuse.

That was several years before though. The system got tightened up.

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes but both Rasmussen and Jaksche have spoken about how team doctors (Leinders in Rasmussen's case) fraudulently got them a TUe for the same drug to aid recovery so the process wasn't beyond abuse.

That was several years before though. The system got tightened up.

Fair point, be interesting to know how difficult it was to obtain one then, it'd also be interesting to see how many were issued for triamwhateveritscalled over that period.

sloppyschleckonds

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes but both Rasmussen and Jaksche have spoken about how team doctors (Leinders in Rasmussen's case) fraudulently got them a TUe for the same drug to aid recovery so the process wasn't beyond abuse.

That was several years before though. The system got tightened up.

Fair point, be interesting to know how difficult it was to obtain one then, it'd also be interesting to see how many were issued for triamwhateveritscalled over that period.

Changed in 2014 so no single doctor could authorise a TUE......

First.Aspect

Why are MPs looking at this at all? They aren't qualified to comment, have no informed perspective and surely have an awfully long list of more important things to do, like *uck up Brexit or run the country while the cabinet *ucks up Brexit.

I've just read the hand-wringing BBC article about Seb Coe's "misleading comments". He was asked if he knew of specific allegations against Russians. He said no. He then gets criticised for misleading the select committee, because he must surely have known about allegations in general. That's not what he was asked, and had he answered in the affirmative, he'd have had to substantiate that answer - which at the time he probably couldn't do.

This puts the standard of their "investigation" into context, I think.

Regarding Sky/BC, I've not heard anything that goes beyond the UKAD report that was published late last year. So all these MPs have done is duplicate something that has already been publicly funded, in relation to something that isn't criminal and for which they already fund governing bodies. Completely pointless. The cynic in me just sees this as a group of MPs joining a bandwagon on one of the few issues that the public are likely to agree with them on.

mididoctors

I'm kinda on board with the sentiment of it all thou. sky sail damn close, maybe to close to the wind. I'm not freaking out about it all but basically, its cycle doping culture lite new style if you like. somewhat liberal use of TUE needs checking. just for perception sake if nothing else.


basically, the transparency of the doctors needs looking into.

the report itself in detail seems a bit weird as has been noted. but the split in opinion between he politicians and the anti-doping boffins kinda highlights more clarity is needed.

morzov

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.

As rightly pointed out above para 110 doesn't really make a lot of sense. This is it.

110. From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of
triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in
2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley
Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. 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. This does not constitute a violation of
the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself
drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in
front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the
WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

mamil314

argyllflyer wrote:

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

Thanks for the link; Sutton reminds me of Durianrider - both talented devils with Joker smile but prone to bullshit. On the other hand, is it really possible to raise champions in a sterile, 'pleasant' environment?

mfin

Hopefully this has upset or annoyed a good few people who are stupid enough to declare themselves a fan of a particular team and/or rider, in this case Sky and Wiggins. Following a sport and enjoying it to the full without a need to "have a team" or a hero is entirely possible for adults.

Once you stand back from it, this news is not that sensational, in fact, the news is only the statement made itself, there's actually nothing new at all.

twotoebenny

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh? Or is it further fake news? Make it up as you go along, throw enough and see what sticks?

RichN95.

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh?

Yeah, I'm wondering this too. The anonymous e-mail publically available says nothing about this.

CuthbertC

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh? Or is it further fake news? Make it up as you go along, throw enough and see what sticks?

Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers in 2012, minimum. The allegation isn't really new (CIRC report):

One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve
without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice. He
stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off,
without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by
using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when
used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported
performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI
WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to
get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same
weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that
group’s management.

Vino'sGhost

morzov wrote:

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.

As rightly pointed out above para 110 doesn't really make a lot of sense. This is it.

110. From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of
triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in
2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley
Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. 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. This does not constitute a violation of
the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself
drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in
front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the
WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

The paragraph makes perfect sense, it says that the comittee believe that doping for performance enhancing was being done but that the way it was presented (i.e. cynical use of the tue )meant that the rider couldnt be found guilty.

This is a simple thing use of drugs for performance rather than medical is breaking the rules but by declaring a medical need where one doesnt exist, the athlete cant be found guilty. That dosnt mean they are innocent.

larkim

Triamcinolone is not banned OOC. You obtain it on prescription only. Once you have obtained it legally by a doctor prescribing it to you, can there be any illegal use of it?

If you've convinced a doctor that it is the best drug to support weight loss, and he consults his documentation and confirms that that is true, and that it doesn't conflict with anything else you are taking, so he makes an ethical and lawful prescription which does no harm (in line with Hippocratic oath etc), is there an offence at all of taking it? If so, what is it, and where is that specified in the WADA / UCI codes?

(I'm not saying its right by the way. Just asking for clarity)

larkim

i.e. Out of competition, there is no TUE to be falsified.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh? Or is it further fake news? Make it up as you go along, throw enough and see what sticks?

Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers in 2012, minimum. The allegation isn't really new (CIRC report):

One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve
without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice. He
stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off,
without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by
using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when
used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported
performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI
WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to
get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same
weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that
group’s management.

That CIRC extract doesn't mention Sky at all.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh? Or is it further fake news? Make it up as you go along, throw enough and see what sticks?

Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers in 2012, minimum. The allegation isn't really new (CIRC report):

One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve
without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice. He
stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off,
without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by
using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when
used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported
performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI
WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to
get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same
weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that
group’s management.

That CIRC extract doesn't mention Sky at all.

Sky's OOC cortisone abuse has practically been an open secret for years.

Brailsford lying through his teeth yet again:

Asked by The Cycling Podcast if Team Sky had used cortisone to prepare riders for races, Brailsford said: 'No, absolutely not, because if it was being used for that purpose and that purpose alone then for me that would be over the line.'

kingstongraham

larkim wrote:

Triamcinolone is not banned OOC. You obtain it on prescription only. Once you have obtained it legally by a doctor prescribing it to you, can there be any illegal use of it?

If you've convinced a doctor that it is the best drug to support weight loss, and he consults his documentation and confirms that that is true, and that it doesn't conflict with anything else you are taking, so he makes an ethical and lawful prescription which does no harm (in line with Hippocratic oath etc), is there an offence at all of taking it? If so, what is it, and where is that specified in the WADA / UCI codes?

(I'm not saying its right by the way. Just asking for clarity)

Reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where Dr Nick describes Homer as "dangerously underweight".

Matthewfalle

Personally I'm just wondering about how much conjecture/how many findings there have to be before people start to realise there may be something fishy going on.

Pross

On the whole weight loss thing, can anyone remember Wiggins appearing to have any left to lose by the time in the season when he had the TUE? From memory he was skeletal all season. I'd also disagree with it being that difficult to lose weight without power, presumably as long as you are losing fat not muscle then your power shouldn't suffer. I've managed to lose half a stone of fat in 3 weeks on several occasions albeit from a much higher percentage to start with.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

Im still interested in that phrase "and possibly other riders supporting him" there must be some further evidence that we are not privy to eh? Or is it further fake news? Make it up as you go along, throw enough and see what sticks?

Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers in 2012, minimum. The allegation isn't really new (CIRC report):

One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve
without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice. He
stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off,
without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by
using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when
used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported
performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI
WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to
get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same
weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that
group’s management.

That CIRC extract doesn't mention Sky at all.

Sky's OOC cortisone abuse has practically been an open secret for years.

With who? The conspiracy theorists of social media. If it's such a well known why couldn't the committee get an actual source for it. This is parliamentary report not a message board rant. If they make an assertion they need a documented source.

blazing_saddles

morzov wrote:

As rightly pointed out above para 110 doesn't really make a lot of sense. This is it.

110. From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of
triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in
2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley
Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. 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. This does not constitute a violation of
the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself
drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in
front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the
WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Others believe that too, but if Vino or anyone else of his persuasion posted something like this, we'd be asking him for an evidence link.

Pross

Matthewfalle wrote:

Personally I'm just wondering about how much conjecture/how many findings there have to be before people start to realise there may be something fishy going on.

I don't think anyone doubts there may be something fishy going on, the issue is people who are definite that there is something fishy going on. I certainly don't like the lack of medical records and if I were Wiggins and innocent I would be seriously p*ssed off that the paperwork that could help demonstrate innocence was not available.

Matthewfalle

Quirky how the one thing that could clear it all up was stolen. No back up files either or other paperwork

Unfortunate, some might say.

Vino'sGhost

Pross wrote:

On the whole weight loss thing, can anyone remember Wiggins appearing to have any left to lose by the time in the season when he had the TUE? From memory he was skeletal all season. I'd also disagree with it being that difficult to lose weight without power, presumably as long as you are losing fat not muscle then your power shouldn't suffer. I've managed to lose half a stone of fat in 3 weeks on several occasions albeit from a much higher percentage to start with.

I remember it was shocking looking at how skeletal he was at that Paris Roubaix .

twotoebenny

Which Paris Roubaix are you referring to? Certainly not 2012