More trouble for Team SKY.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

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.

'Members of the Committee have also received confidential material from a well-placed and respected source'.

No, they don't 'need' a documented source. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

They're hedging their bets, they don't say they think the prescription was unnecessary just that it was used for performance enhancing reasons as well as medical. If there was a genuine medical reason to take it at that time then the performance enhancing element should be ignored, if there was no genuine medical need then an anti-doping offence has occurred by obtaining a TUE without a genuine reason and therefore they should be saying the rules have been broken.

I was actually genuinely surprised by how amateurish the report read - very little genuine technical, peer reviewed evidence and lots of hearsay or anecdotal input. It reminds me a lot of Councillors who determine planning applications and don't look at the advice of their officers.

Pross

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

They're hedging their bets, they don't say they think the prescription was unnecessary just that it was used for performance enhancing reasons as well as medical. If there was a genuine medical reason to take it at that time then the performance enhancing element should be ignored, if there was no genuine medical need then an anti-doping offence has occurred by obtaining a TUE without a genuine reason and therefore they should be saying the rules have been broken.

I was actually genuinely surprised by how amateurish the report read - very little genuine technical, peer reviewed evidence and lots of hearsay or anecdotal input. It reminds me a lot of Councillors who determine planning applications and don't look at the advice of their officers.

"The purpose of this was not to treat medical need"

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

'Members of the Committee have also received confidential material from a well-placed and respected source'.

No, they don't 'need' a documented source. I don't know where you got that idea from.

And that anonymous source's testimony is here: http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEviden ... 69004.html

It doesn't mention it

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

I was actually genuinely surprised by how amateurish the report read - very little genuine technical, peer reviewed evidence and lots of hearsay or anecdotal input. It reminds me a lot of Councillors who determine planning applications and don't look at the advice of their officers.

It reminded me a last minute rushed school report where they've not really done any work so have taken a report someone did last year and dressed it up with some bits they've got off the internet.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

'Members of the Committee have also received confidential material from a well-placed and respected source'.

No, they don't 'need' a documented source. I don't know where you got that idea from.

And that anonymous source's testimony is here: http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEviden ... 69004.html

It doesn't mention it

No, there are 3 whistleblower BDA0021 footnotes (131-133). None of those footnotes appear in paragraph 98 (OOC cortisone). It is a different person.

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

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.

They're hedging their bets, they don't say they think the prescription was unnecessary just that it was used for performance enhancing reasons as well as medical. If there was a genuine medical reason to take it at that time then the performance enhancing element should be ignored, if there was no genuine medical need then an anti-doping offence has occurred by obtaining a TUE without a genuine reason and therefore they should be saying the rules have been broken.

I was actually genuinely surprised by how amateurish the report read - very little genuine technical, peer reviewed evidence and lots of hearsay or anecdotal input. It reminds me a lot of Councillors who determine planning applications and don't look at the advice of their officers.

"The purpose of this was not to treat medical need"

So they did break the real rules and not just some imagined (by DB) ethical boundary? Why do they then say the rules weren't broken.

There also seems to be no real explanation of where they got to that statement just 'he took this, some people say it has performance enhancing benefits therefore we don't think he had a genuine medical reason and took it solely for the alleged performance effects'.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

'Members of the Committee have also received confidential material from a well-placed and respected source'.

No, they don't 'need' a documented source. I don't know where you got that idea from.

And that anonymous source's testimony is here: http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEviden ... 69004.html

It doesn't mention it

No, there are 3 whistleblower BDA0021 footnotes (131-133). None of those footnotes appear in paragraph 98 (OOC cortisone). It is a different person.

They shouldn't make accusations without publishing the information they have received. Even if it is redacted.

"We have evidence but you can't see it" doesn't make a credible case. Especially as they never asked Sky about it.

Matthewfalle

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

Vino'sGhost

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

if you should lose the paperwork from both places then no one would know if your procedures were up to it.

Pross

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

I think it's pretty clear that, at best, the procedures haven't been followed. I think that has even been previously admitted by BC if not Sky and I believe it is possibly one of the issues Freeman is up in front of the GMC about.

Matthewfalle

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

if you should lose the paperwork from both places then no one would know if your procedures were up to it.

Matthewfalle

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

I think it's pretty clear that, at best, the procedures haven't been followed. I think that has even been previously admitted by BC if not Sky and I believe it is possibly one of the issues Freeman is up in front of the GMC about.

Strange how not following procedures seemed to have covered up a potential doping charge.

But I suppose that if the computer hadn't been stolen then there wouldn't be all these shenanigans...... Darn that computer thief.

Vino'sGhost

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

I think it's pretty clear that, at best, the procedures haven't been followed. I think that has even been previously admitted by BC if not Sky and I believe it is possibly one of the issues Freeman is up in front of the GMC about.

Strange how not following procedures seemed to have covered up a potential doping charge.

But I suppose that if the computer hadn't been stolen then there wouldn't be all these shenanigans...... Darn that computer thief.

And darn the rotten luck that the doctor was too ill to tell what he knew

Matthewfalle

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's the most troubling thing for me. If it was stolen surely they would have had some documentation such as an insurance claim or police report from that time in which case I'd accept it as they wouldn't have known back then that it would become a potential piece of evidence.

I Think it's bizarre as when I issue any drugs at work or perform any kind of procedure or treat anyone the amount of paperwork I have is immense and copies are held in two different places and audited on a regular basis.

But I suppose there may be a difference between where I work and a multi million pound professional sports team who have vowed to race clean and know that they will be under constant scrutiny by fans, media, government bodies and the sports ruling bodies.

It may be that my procedures are wrong. Who knows?

I think it's pretty clear that, at best, the procedures haven't been followed. I think that has even been previously admitted by BC if not Sky and I believe it is possibly one of the issues Freeman is up in front of the GMC about.

Strange how not following procedures seemed to have covered up a potential doping charge.

But I suppose that if the computer hadn't been stolen then there wouldn't be all these shenanigans...... Darn that computer thief.

And darn the rotten luck that the doctor was too ill to tell what he knew

It's just a calamity. All this bad luck happening at once. Who woulda thunk it? I surprised any of them get out of bed in the morning.

shortfall

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)

Disclaimer: I don't know the actual process by which an athlete obtains a TUE so what I'm about to say may be completely wrong.

That being said, there is no shortage of Doctors who will say and do whatever someone is paying them handsomely to say and do. It was a doctor who was supplying Michael Jackson with anaesthetic designed to knock people out for operations in the full knowledge that he was using it to aid sleep. Doctors called as expert witnesses in court will either mitigate or exaggerate depending on which side they are acting for and the judge or jury has to decide which one is nearer the truth. In short, if you believe that all doctors always act entirely in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath and without bias then I've got this bridge that I'd like to sell you.

Matthewfalle

Shortfall wrote:

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)

Disclaimer: I don't know the actual process by which an athlete obtains a TUE so what I'm about to say may be completely wrong.

That being said, there is no shortage of Doctors who will say and do whatever someone is paying them handsomely to say and do. It was a doctor who was supplying Michael Jackson with anaesthetic designed to knock people out for operations in the full knowledge that he was using it to aid sleep. Doctors called as expert witnesses in court will either mitigate or exaggerate depending on which side they are acting for and the judge or jury has to decide which one is nearer the truth. In short, if you believe that all doctors always act entirely in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath and without bias then I've got this bridge that I'd like to sell you.

And if any doctor told me he was going to stick a needle in me with something that I didn't understand, was illegal, immoral or against the rules of my employer I'd tell him to stick it elsewhere.

Matthewfalle

As an aside, didn't sky have a no needles policy?

iainf72

Debeli wrote:

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

Evans wasn't spotted by Ferrari. Aldo Sassi managed that transition, when he was sponsored by Cannondale, who also happened to provide the bikes to Saeco at the time.

He did a test with Evans at the behest of Tony Rominger (who was Evans agent) but he never worked with him in a shape that has become public. And there's a pretty good body of evidence about who worked with Ferrari.

iainf72

I still think the Jiffy Bag contained something embarrassing, but not in a doping space, ie, something that's nobodies business.

And perhaps this will force it out.

Matthewfalle

iainf72 wrote:

I still think the Jiffy Bag contained something embarrassing, but not in a doping space, ie, something that's nobodies business.

And perhaps this will force it out.

Straws. Clutching.

I blame Armstrong.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

As an aside, didn't sky have a no needles policy?

No

Most of the 'whiter than white' claims made on Sky's behalf were never said by them.

Their Zero Tolerance Policy was just nothing more than a recruitment policy.

CuthbertC

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

'Members of the Committee have also received confidential material from a well-placed and respected source'.

No, they don't 'need' a documented source. I don't know where you got that idea from.

And that anonymous source's testimony is here: http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEviden ... 69004.html

It doesn't mention it

No, there are 3 whistleblower BDA0021 footnotes (131-133). None of those footnotes appear in paragraph 98 (OOC cortisone). It is a different person.

They shouldn't make accusations without publishing the information they have received. Even if it is redacted.

"We have evidence but you can't see it" doesn't make a credible case. Especially as they never asked Sky about it.

Brailsford was asked about it:

The Committee asked David Brailsford whether Bradley Wiggins had used corticosteroids like triamcinolone, out of competition and therefore without the need for a TUE. He replied, “Not to my knowledge”, but also stated that he “would not ask the medical department” about this, as “That was up to them.

Wiggins admitted to OOC use:

Bradley Wiggins has though stated in writing to the Committee that he was treated with triamcinolone on other occasions outside of competition and without the need for a TUE.

Perhaps Sir Bradley is just another conspiracy theorist?

iainf72

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I still think the Jiffy Bag contained something embarrassing, but not in a doping space, ie, something that's nobodies business.

And perhaps this will force it out.

Straws. Clutching.

I blame Armstrong.

Dude

I have been hating on Sky longer than you have. As I matter of fact, I got told off officially on the forum in 2009 for comments about one of their hires suitability for a clean team when his wife saw my posting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who remember that from the time. I've also managed to speak to some journos who when I asked why they didn't ask certain questions of DB gave me an answer. (which was repeated some time later on a well know podcast)

Sky being hypocrites - FFS, like this is news.

RichN95.

CuthbertC wrote:

Brailsford was asked about it:

The Committee asked David Brailsford whether Bradley Wiggins had used corticosteroids like triamcinolone, out of competition and therefore without the need for a TUE. He replied, “Not to my knowledge”, but also stated that he “would not ask the medical department” about this, as “That was up to them.

Could you point out the bit where he's asked about other riders?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

As an aside, didn't sky have a no needles policy?

No

Most of the 'whiter than white' claims made on Sky's behalf were never said by them.

Their Zero Tolerance Policy was just nothing more than a recruitment policy.

So it was a policy then?

Or are you saying they just lied to people to get them to join their team?

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

Brailsford was asked about it:

The Committee asked David Brailsford whether Bradley Wiggins had used corticosteroids like triamcinolone, out of competition and therefore without the need for a TUE. He replied, “Not to my knowledge”, but also stated that he “would not ask the medical department” about this, as “That was up to them.

Could you point out the bit where he's asked about other riders?

Sorry - this bloke who was meant to be so efficient at everything and controlling didn't ask his doctors what they were injecting his star rider with?

Seriously?

Matthewfalle

iainf72 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I still think the Jiffy Bag contained something embarrassing, but not in a doping space, ie, something that's nobodies business.

And perhaps this will force it out.

Straws. Clutching.

I blame Armstrong.

Dude

I have been hating on Sky longer than you have. As I matter of fact, I got told off officially on the forum in 2009 for comments about one of their hires suitability for a clean team when his wife saw my posting. I'm sure there are plenty of people who remember that from the time. I've also managed to speak to some journos who when I asked why they didn't ask certain questions of DB gave me an answer. (which was repeated some time later on a well know podcast)

Sky being hypocrites - FFS, like this is news.

If you got a bollocking due to some bloke's wife then I am impressed - big phat no needles hat.

That's cool.

The most I've ever had is Josh telling me stop taking the pisss out of Richard.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

As an aside, didn't sky have a no needles policy?

No

Most of the 'whiter than white' claims made on Sky's behalf were never said by them.

Their Zero Tolerance Policy was just nothing more than a recruitment policy.

So it was a policy then?

Or are you saying they just lied to people to get them to join their team?

It was only a recruitment policy, but it has constantly been portrayed (not by Sky) to be an all encompassing whiter than white approach. But if you actually read what Brailsford and others said, even early on, that was never really the case.