More trouble for Team SKY.

blazing_saddles

Worth reading the comments section, if things start off a little slow around here.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ort-371672

argyllflyer

RichN95 wrote:

durhamwasp wrote:

All very sad stuff, and even sadder is the realisation that if Sky and Wiggo are pushing the rules to the absolute limit, then so to will the other teams and major contenders.

So what if they are. If they're within the rules then what's the problem? This is just a contest according to an arbritary set of rules. You can't just make up your own rules and complain people don't follow them.

...unless you're the MPCC.

Vino'sGhost

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Worth reading the comments section, if things start off a little slow around here.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ort-371672

Lol just the same as here but with even less intelligence or grasp of the English language.

DeVlaeminck

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639

Full transcript of Wiggins' interview.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Worth reading the comments section, if things start off a little slow around here.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... ort-371672

Lol just the same as here but with even less intelligence or grasp of the English language.

Really? I think they have hit a couple of nails on the head, there.

What interested me the most was that all previous Sky doping articles have split opinion, this one seems to have pretty much a united response.

Just a couple:

And there's the nub of the issue. Collins has been determined to nail someone ever since this investigation began. As Wiggins has said, it should not be possible for an unsubstantiated source to be used as 'on the record' proof on wrongdoing. If this unnamed person has evidence that Sky abused triamcinolone, he or she should provide evidence that can be examined by UKAD. Otherwise the whole thing becomes trial by innuendo.

Incidentally, Collins hasn't just provided false claims for his flat in London. He has the 4th highest expenses claims of any MP in the UK (only exceeded by an MP for North Wales and one in the Highlands and the notorious Simon Dancziuk) and he tried to feed some government work through his wife's company without declaring an interest. He is a man on the make, and he isn't too bothered how he ascends the greasy pole.

“Who are these sources? Come out. Go on record. This is serious stuff.”

If you're going to attempt to destroy a man's reputation and lifetime achievements, you should not do so without substantiating the claim and giving the man the right of reply, so for once I totally agree with Wiggins. He's not a character I've ever warmed to, but I feel his treatment at the hands of Collins/DCMS is very poor indeed.

twotoebenny

Those were two that certainly struck a chord with me

top_bhoy

Wiggins doesn't strike me as the naive type but I can believe that he is innocent of intentionally cheating. I am prepared to believe he is the victim of bad advise on the course of his health treatments by the Sky team Dr's and management. However, unless new evidence appears, I think it unlikely he will ever rescue back his now badly tarnished reputation.

Whether intentional or not on the issue of drugs, as team manager and in a position of authority and responsibility for the health of the riders under his management, it should be Brailsford whose reputation is tarnished. Over a long period of time, by not ensuring drug administration protocols and processes were in place and adhered to, he was negligent and should have either fallen on his sword or have been sacked.

Vino'sGhost

Well i think the papers are going after him now, in response he does the sympathy thing even bringing his kids into it.

It doesnt help that he was investing in dodgy tax avoidance schemes either.

TheBigBean

Have we had the bone idle speech again? I'm not a Wiggins fan, but that was a top quality rant.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well i think the papers are going after him now, in response he does the sympathy thing even bringing his kids into it.

It doesnt help that he was investing in dodgy tax avoidance schemes either.

I think "using" fits better than "investing in".

Matthewfalle

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Wiggins doesn't strike me as the naive type but I can believe that he is innocent of intentionally cheating. I am prepared to believe he is the victim of bad advise on the course of his health treatments by the Sky team Dr's and management. However, unless new evidence appears, I think it unlikely he will ever rescue back his now badly tarnished reputation.

Whether intentional or not on the issue of drugs, as team manager and in a position of authority and responsibility for the health of the riders under his management, it should be Brailsford whose reputation is tarnished. Over a long period of time, by not ensuring drug administration protocols and processes were in place and adhered to, he was negligent and should have either fallen on his sword or have been sacked.

Dude

This guy has been a professional athlete for years, Olympian, pro roadie, etc etc.

He knows the score of exactly what he is putting in his body.

He would listen to what the doctor said, think about it and make a decision based on his knowledge and anything else he researched.

he knew exactly what was/was not happening. They all do, not just him.

argyllflyer

Matthewfalle wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Wiggins doesn't strike me as the naive type but I can believe that he is innocent of intentionally cheating. I am prepared to believe he is the victim of bad advise on the course of his health treatments by the Sky team Dr's and management. However, unless new evidence appears, I think it unlikely he will ever rescue back his now badly tarnished reputation.

Whether intentional or not on the issue of drugs, as team manager and in a position of authority and responsibility for the health of the riders under his management, it should be Brailsford whose reputation is tarnished. Over a long period of time, by not ensuring drug administration protocols and processes were in place and adhered to, he was negligent and should have either fallen on his sword or have been sacked.

Dude

This guy has been a professional athlete for years, Olympian, pro roadie, etc etc.

He knows the score of exactly what he is putting in his body.

He would listen to what the doctor said, think about it and make a decision based on his knowledge and anything else he researched.

he knew exactly what was/was not happening. They all do, not just him.

Has at any point has Sir Wig said he did not know what was being put in his body?

What he *has* said is that he did not know what was in the Dauphine jiffy bag as he did not personally receive it, but that he did take medicine (Flumicil) out of competition, hours later, at Sestriere. He denies taking anything on the bus at the Dauphine. He admits having a cortisone shot once out of competition for a knee issue after the 2013 Giro and did not race again for 2 months - returning he says at Tour de Pologne. He denies the allegation that he had taken it up to 9 times. I would say he's pretty clear on what he has and has not done. Whether you believe him or not is another matter.

StillGoing

CLearly, doping needs to be made illegal here so that any submitted evidence has to be corroborated. Hearsay and speculation has no value.

bompington

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well i think the papers are going after him now, in response he does the sympathy thing even bringing his kids into it.

It doesnt help that he was investing in dodgy tax avoidance schemes either.

I think "using" fits better than "investing in".

I like the way that the headlines leave you with the idea, without actually saying as much, that he put £100 million into some dodgy scam. Presumably it was actually another one of those perfectly legal schemes dreamt up by clever accountants (they do exist, despite what the evidence on here might lead you to believe) that his accountant told him to do and he said "sure".

Certainly not relevant to this discussion, and thankfully there aren't any trolls with an axe to grind who would bring it up on this forum, are there? :roll:

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

I like the way that the headlines leave you with the idea, without actually saying as much, that he put £100 million into some dodgy scam. Presumably it was actually another one of those perfectly legal schemes dreamt up by clever accountants (they do exist, despite what the evidence on here might lead you to believe) that his accountant told him to do and he said "sure".

Exactly. The media seem to think that the celebrities who invest in these things are experts in tax law. They're just told by their accountant that they'll save X amount and it's legal.

veronese68

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Well i think the papers are going after him now, in response he does the sympathy thing even bringing his kids into it.

It doesnt help that he was investing in dodgy tax avoidance schemes either.

You started two threads about him this morning, one about the tax thing and one about sympathy, you really need to let go of this obsession with him it's not healthy.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

I like the way that the headlines leave you with the idea, without actually saying as much, that he put £100 million into some dodgy scam. Presumably it was actually another one of those perfectly legal schemes dreamt up by clever accountants (they do exist, despite what the evidence on here might lead you to believe) that his accountant told him to do and he said "sure".

Exactly. The media seem to think that the celebrities who invest in these things are experts in tax law. They're just told by their accountant that they'll save X amount and it's legal.

It's a bit more complicated than that not least because you can't outsource your responsibility.

kleinstroker

Can somebody clear this up as there seems to be a lot of confusion.
If you are in the UCI RTP pool, as Wiggins was and you used Triamcinolone outside of competition, did he need a TUE? Or is it legal to use Triaminoclone as prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition without an exemption?
Is Triamcinolone only banned for competition use?

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

I like the way that the headlines leave you with the idea, without actually saying as much, that he put £100 million into some dodgy scam. Presumably it was actually another one of those perfectly legal schemes dreamt up by clever accountants (they do exist, despite what the evidence on here might lead you to believe) that his accountant told him to do and he said "sure".

Exactly. The media seem to think that the celebrities who invest in these things are experts in tax law. They're just told by their accountant that they'll save X amount and it's legal.

It's a bit more complicated than that not least because you can't outsource your responsibility.

Only from a legal point of view. In reality if you invest money in a fund, you probably don't bother asking where that fund is investing.

RichN95.

kleinstroker wrote:

Can somebody clear this up as there seems to be a lot of confusion.
If you are in the UCI RTP pool, as Wiggins was and you used Triamcinolone outside of competition, did he need a TUE? Or is it legal to use Triaminoclone as prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition without an exemption?
Is Triamcinolone only banned for competition use?

Only banned in competition. (It's widely used to treat injuries, which is why it's not banned OOC)

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

I like the way that the headlines leave you with the idea, without actually saying as much, that he put £100 million into some dodgy scam. Presumably it was actually another one of those perfectly legal schemes dreamt up by clever accountants (they do exist, despite what the evidence on here might lead you to believe) that his accountant told him to do and he said "sure".

Exactly. The media seem to think that the celebrities who invest in these things are experts in tax law. They're just told by their accountant that they'll save X amount and it's legal.

It's a bit more complicated than that not least because you can't outsource your responsibility.

Only from a legal point of view. In reality if you invest money in a fund, you probably don't bother asking where that fund is investing.

Seriously? You're happy to whack your hard earned into anything without looking at it first?

Right, I've got this bridge you may be interested in.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Seriously? You're happy to whack your hard earned into anything without looking at it first?

Right, I've got this bridge you may be interested in.

Bridge Over Troubled Waters?

kleinstroker

RichN95 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Can somebody clear this up as there seems to be a lot of confusion.
If you are in the UCI RTP pool, as Wiggins was and you used Triamcinolone outside of competition, did he need a TUE? Or is it legal to use Triaminoclone as prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition without an exemption?
Is Triamcinolone only banned for competition use?

Only banned in competition. (It's widely used to treat injuries, which is why it's not banned OOC)

Thanks. So he cannot have broken rules for TUE, as no TUE necessary. That's what I thought but everyone seems to be claiming it is doping because he broke TUE granting rules

kingstongraham

kleinstroker wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Can somebody clear this up as there seems to be a lot of confusion.
If you are in the UCI RTP pool, as Wiggins was and you used Triamcinolone outside of competition, did he need a TUE? Or is it legal to use Triaminoclone as prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition without an exemption?
Is Triamcinolone only banned for competition use?

Only banned in competition. (It's widely used to treat injuries, which is why it's not banned OOC)

Thanks. So he cannot have broken rules for TUE, as no TUE necessary. That's what I thought but everyone seems to be claiming it is doping because he broke TUE granting rules

He also used it in competition under a TUE.

kleinstroker

This is why so many contradictory statements popping up, use in and out of competition governed by different rules.
System definitely needs changing to be more consistent.
Surprised no comment so far from David Millar! Wonder if he was the unnamed source?

Vino'sGhost

kleinstroker wrote:

This is why so many contradictory statements popping up, use in and out of competition governed by different rules.
System definitely needs changing to be more consistent.
Surprised no comment so far from David Millar! Wonder if he was the unnamed source?

Millar has commented, he did a piece a little whiel ago about just how awesome this stuff is. Much better he reckoned than EPO or Test. He did his with a dodgy TUE too

StillGoing

kleinstroker wrote:

This is why so many contradictory statements popping up, use in and out of competition governed by different rules.
System definitely needs changing to be more consistent.
Surprised no comment so far from David Millar! Wonder if he was the unnamed source?

More likely a disposed of ex rider/staff that was got rid of under the no doping history requirement. Whatever or whoever it was, it is nothing more than gossip without evidence. But that's the difference currently with British cycling doping regulations and British law. Finger pointing is seen as evidence in one and pure bollox without proof in the other.

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

This is why so many contradictory statements popping up, use in and out of competition governed by different rules.
System definitely needs changing to be more consistent.
Surprised no comment so far from David Millar! Wonder if he was the unnamed source?

More likely a disposed of ex rider/staff that was got rid of under the no doping history requirement. Whatever or whoever it was, it is nothing more than gossip without evidence. But that's the difference currently with British cycling doping regulations and British law. Finger pointing is seen as evidence in one and pure bollox without proof in the other.

I think youll find witness statements are used as evidence in both places.

Vino'sGhost

We seem to be through the denial and anger stages and into the bargaining part.

Next week or month it will be Depression and finally acceptance.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

We seem to be through the denial and anger stages and into the bargaining part.

Next week or month it will be Depression and finally acceptance.

Let us know when you get there.