More trouble for Team SKY.

Pross

IT was refreshing to hear the head of UKAD on Radio 5 this morning. She stuck to facts and process even when Nicky Campbell tried to provoke her with now cliched 'asleep at the wheel' comment.

Whilst the head of the body responsible for doping has no evidence any has occurred a bunch of politicians can throw around accusations with the protection of their status without evidence that media scum like Morgan can pounce on and feel they can call someone a drugs cheat. As Wiggins himself said he has far less protection in this than he would as a criminal.

Richmond Racer 2

Dorset Boy wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Why would anyone reveal negative things about themselves in an autobiography?

Like Froome stealing baby rabbits from a kindergarten and feeding them to a snake?

He was eight years old.

Or so he says.

Need to check his Strava - any rides go past nurseries?

#sorrynotsorry

gsk82

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days. First he claims that no one knew Wiggins had asthma before this came out. Then he says he used an inhaler at while at Slipstream.

gsk82

RichN95 wrote:

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

But it probably would still have been detectable by the time he got to a competition, so he'd need a TUE to cover that.

And he's said that if the allegation that he took it after the Dauphine was true, it would have been picked up in the drug test at the nationals the following week. Is that true?

RichN95.

gsk82 wrote:

And he's said that if the allegation that he took it after the Dauphine was true, it would have been picked up in the drug test at the nationals the following week. Is that true?

No idea. Sorry.

bompington

RichN95 wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

And he's said that if the allegation that he took it after the Dauphine was true, it would have been picked up in the drug test at the nationals the following week. Is that true?

No idea. Sorry.

Hang on a minute. Refusing to post just because you have no actual knowledge is entirely against the spirit of doping threads.

slim_boy_fat

argyllflyer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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

But it probably would still have been detectable by the time he got to a competition, so he'd need a TUE to cover that.

He told Dan Roan he only had it OOC once, for a sore knee after the Giro in '13 and did not race again til Tour de Pologne. The compulsory rest time he said was 2 weeks (I thought it was 8 days...? Could be imagining that) but they left it 2 months. And having checked here, his memory was correct.

https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.p ... eason=2013

This is backed up by an interview he did with Will Fotheringham back in 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... rview-tues

It's a decent read and gives a whole lot of context to how the need for the TUE's came about, seemingly backed up with written medical evidence from the time.

cycleclinic

It is a wonder why anyone want to compete in sport. If you are any good people will look for any non evidence that your a cheat and use it.

now you dont have to be guilty of cheating just ethically dubious and pushing the boundries. Well if thats the case how is using Science to inform training regimes any different to what the MP's have claimed wiggo and Sky have done. If all advanatge is a sin then there can be no teams, no radio's no support cars.

We have a religious obbession with sport being "clean" and sport is eating it self because of it.

In the original 6 day races the riders took stimulants to stay awake does that make there acheivements any less valid. today it would be but back then it was fine. I am not saying drug taking is fine but I think the obbession with making sport clean is creating its own problems.

RichN95.

thecycleclinic wrote:

It is a wonder why anyone want to compete in sport. If you are any good people will look for any non evidence that your a cheat and use it.

now you dont have to be guilty of cheating just ethically dubious and pushing the boundries. Well if thats the case how is using Science to inform training regimes any different to what the MP's have claimed wiggo and Sky have done. If all advanatge is a sin then there can be no teams, no radio's no support cars.

We have a religious obbession with sport being "clean" and sport is eating it self because of it.

In the original 6 day races the riders took stimulants to stay awake does that make there acheivements any less valid. today it would be but back then it was fine. I am not saying drug taking is fine but I think the obbession with making sport clean is creating its own problems.

All any sport has is rules. Keep within those rules and everything is fine. Ethics and boundaries are for people who want a doping scandal without doping.

From my years as a hockey club administrator all that mattered was the rules. Not the spirit or ethics. Just the rules. I have spent to much of my time disputing the merits of league rule 7.4. No-one claimed those exploiting it were cheating, they disputed the rule.

If we weren't sure of a rule we didn't dispute the ethics, we asked the authorities if we could do something, putting our case, and followed that.

A few years back Welsh Hockey sent around a survey about who should be allowed to play for Wales - with particularly with regard to residency qualification. The overwhelming majority said anyone eligible under the rules should be allowed to play. I can now point to at least one member of the Commonwealth Games squad who qualified by spending three years at University in Cardiff.

All sports are defined by their rules. There's no underlying ethical aspect to them.

Gregger

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footba ... 13791.html

This is an interesting article about asthma in elite athletes which wouldn't I guess give the "normal" symptoms we see in average patients
I can see that at the extreme of exertion then airways could get inflamed giving mild asthma type symptoms
I can see how a steroid could possibly prevent this inflammation ( and have some nice shredding effects too)
I guess Sky have the cash to have their riders seen by top respiratory physicians, presumably be positive for exhaled nitric oxide, confirming exercise induced asthma and hence a TUE issued

So I suspect they have sailed right along the line

However Wiggins should come clean about how many he has had and when - he must have some rough idea and he must have known when he was on the end of the needle how suspect this looks and that it will come out in due course

The Froome's salbutamol thing though is most odd, you never see him taking a puff in the Peloton
Is my brothers rumour correct that salbutamol can be used to mask other drugs? A bit like Schleck and his furosemide ban

RichN95.

Gregger wrote:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/exerciseinduced-asthma-affects-28-per-cent-of-elite-footballers-health-study-finds-a3713791.html

This is an interesting article about asthma in elite athletes which wouldn't I guess give the "normal" symptoms we see in average patients

That's football though. Why is it unethical to take cortisone in football? It shows passion. Do you know what passion is? It's playing the badge on the shirt. The history. The fans. A player should die for that. And the journalist's seats at Wembley. And the buffet. And the free bar.

Gregger

Similar results shown in elite rugby players I note

gsk82

Gregger wrote:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/exerciseinduced-asthma-affects-28-per-cent-of-elite-footballers-health-study-finds-a3713791.html

This is an interesting article about asthma in elite athletes which wouldn't I guess give the "normal" symptoms we see in average patients
I can see that at the extreme of exertion then airways could get inflamed giving mild asthma type symptoms
I can see how a steroid could possibly prevent this inflammation ( and have some nice shredding effects too)
I guess Sky have the cash to have their riders seen by top respiratory physicians, presumably be positive for exhaled nitric oxide, confirming exercise induced asthma and hence a TUE issued

So I suspect they have sailed right along the line

However Wiggins should come clean about how many he has had and when - he must have some rough idea and he must have known when he was on the end of the needle how suspect this looks and that it will come out in due course

The Froome's salbutamol thing though is most odd, you never see him taking a puff in the Peloton
Is my brothers rumour correct that salbutamol can be used to mask other drugs? A bit like Schleck and his furosemide ban

Your brother isn't correct and there has been footage of Froome using his inhaler during races. The most famous case was at the tour of romandie in about 2013 I think

slim_boy_fat

Gregger wrote:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/exerciseinduced-asthma-affects-28-per-cent-of-elite-footballers-health-study-finds-a3713791.html

This is an interesting article about asthma in elite athletes which wouldn't I guess give the "normal" symptoms we see in average patients
I can see that at the extreme of exertion then airways could get inflamed giving mild asthma type symptoms
I can see how a steroid could possibly prevent this inflammation ( and have some nice shredding effects too)
I guess Sky have the cash to have their riders seen by top respiratory physicians, presumably be positive for exhaled nitric oxide, confirming exercise induced asthma and hence a TUE issued

So I suspect they have sailed right along the line

However Wiggins should come clean about how many he has had and when - he must have some rough idea and he must have known when he was on the end of the needle how suspect this looks and that it will come out in due course

The Froome's salbutamol thing though is most odd, you never see him taking a puff in the Peloton
Is my brothers rumour correct that salbutamol can be used to mask other drugs? A bit like Schleck and his furosemide ban

You used to see Froome using an inhaler during a race quite often be he decided to stop doing it as, although he was using it within the rules, he was worried about what it might look like and how the Twitterati would use it against him.

durhamwasp

So he doesn't use an inhaler in a race but had a salbutamol level in his system from that of 20 puffs?

FFW, IMO Wiggo and Sky haven't broken any rules, and most other teams will be doing the same.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

It is a wonder why anyone want to compete in sport. If you are any good people will look for any non evidence that your a cheat and use it.

now you dont have to be guilty of cheating just ethically dubious and pushing the boundries. Well if thats the case how is using Science to inform training regimes any different to what the MP's have claimed wiggo and Sky have done. If all advanatge is a sin then there can be no teams, no radio's no support cars.

We have a religious obbession with sport being "clean" and sport is eating it self because of it.

In the original 6 day races the riders took stimulants to stay awake does that make there acheivements any less valid. today it would be but back then it was fine. I am not saying drug taking is fine but I think the obbession with making sport clean is creating its own problems.

All any sport has is rules. Keep within those rules and everything is fine. Ethics and boundaries are for people who want a doping scandal without doping.

From my years as a hockey club administrator all that mattered was the rules. Not the spirit or ethics. Just the rules. I have spent to much of my time disputing the merits of league rule 7.4. No-one claimed those exploiting it were cheating, they disputed the rule.

If we weren't sure of a rule we didn't dispute the ethics, we asked the authorities if we could do something, putting our case, and followed that.

A few years back Welsh Hockey sent around a survey about who should be allowed to play for Wales - with particularly with regard to residency qualification. The overwhelming majority said anyone eligible under the rules should be allowed to play. I can now point to at least one member of the Commonwealth Games squad who qualified by spending three years at University in Cardiff.

All sports are defined by their rules. There's no underlying ethical aspect to them.

Spoken like a true administrator. Sport achievement and leadership is not defined by the rules. The rules are merely the framework in which the sport is played.

kleinstroker

If anyone's interested, finally found a paper on possible PE effects of using Triamcinolone. There's so much waffle and uninformed opinions out there, this was actually helpful

http://hormonebalance.org/images/documents/Glucocorticoids%20sports%20no%20effect%20.pdf

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

It is a wonder why anyone want to compete in sport. If you are any good people will look for any non evidence that your a cheat and use it.

now you dont have to be guilty of cheating just ethically dubious and pushing the boundries. Well if thats the case how is using Science to inform training regimes any different to what the MP's have claimed wiggo and Sky have done. If all advanatge is a sin then there can be no teams, no radio's no support cars.

We have a religious obbession with sport being "clean" and sport is eating it self because of it.

In the original 6 day races the riders took stimulants to stay awake does that make there acheivements any less valid. today it would be but back then it was fine. I am not saying drug taking is fine but I think the obbession with making sport clean is creating its own problems.

All any sport has is rules. Keep within those rules and everything is fine. Ethics and boundaries are for people who want a doping scandal without doping.

From my years as a hockey club administrator all that mattered was the rules. Not the spirit or ethics. Just the rules. I have spent to much of my time disputing the merits of league rule 7.4. No-one claimed those exploiting it were cheating, they disputed the rule.

If we weren't sure of a rule we didn't dispute the ethics, we asked the authorities if we could do something, putting our case, and followed that.

A few years back Welsh Hockey sent around a survey about who should be allowed to play for Wales - with particularly with regard to residency qualification. The overwhelming majority said anyone eligible under the rules should be allowed to play. I can now point to at least one member of the Commonwealth Games squad who qualified by spending three years at University in Cardiff.

All sports are defined by their rules. There's no underlying ethical aspect to them.

Spoken like a true administrator. Sport achievement and leadership is not defined by the rules. The rules are merely the framework in which the sport is played.

So who sets the ethics, the riders? By that rationale pro cycling should have just allowed rampant doping as, although outside the rules, that’s how the majority of participants had decided the sport should develop in the 90s - 00s.

shortfall

gsk82 wrote:

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days.

Really? He's also a multi award winning journalist and best selling author who was instrumental in the downfall of Lance Armstrong and exposing the state of the doping culture in cycling. He's had a long and distinguished career in sport journalism so I reckon he's earnt his chops so if anyone is qualified to comment on this saga then I'd say it was David Walsh. You and I (and anyone else who posts anonymously on this forum) however are just people with an opinion. Anyone is entitled to think whatever they want of course, but I would suggest that when David Walsh speaks on this subject that his opinion holds more weight than does that of "Random Bloke On Bike Radar" . Further, as someone who has previously been sued by Lance Armstrong, I'm sure he didnt say it lightly when he publicly accused Wiggins of being a cheat as he did twice on Good Morning Britain yesterday. It will be interesting to see if Wiggins takes Piers Morgan or Walsh to court over those accusations.

carbonclem

Shortfall wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days.

Really? He's also a multi award winning journalist and best selling author who was instrumental in the downfall of Lance Armstrong and exposing the state of the doping culture in cycling. He's had a long and distinguished career in sport journalism so I reckon he's earnt his chops. If anyone is qualified to comment on this saga then I'd say it was David Walsh. You and I (and anyone else who posts anonymously on this forum) however are just people with an opinion. He's previously been sued by Lance Armstrong so I'm sure he didnt say it lightly when he publicly accused Wiggins of being a cheat as he did twice yesterday on Good Morning Britain. It will be interesting to see if Wiggins takes Piers Morgan or Walsh to court over those accusations.

It made me chuckle to see David Walsh's on screen graphic describe him as an 'Investigative Journalist' as he explained how he'd been embedded within Team Sky primarily to seek out drug stories and hadn't seen a thing to concern him all along ...

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

shortfall

CarbonClem wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days.

Really? He's also a multi award winning journalist and best selling author who was instrumental in the downfall of Lance Armstrong and exposing the state of the doping culture in cycling. He's had a long and distinguished career in sport journalism so I reckon he's earnt his chops. If anyone is qualified to comment on this saga then I'd say it was David Walsh. You and I (and anyone else who posts anonymously on this forum) however are just people with an opinion. He's previously been sued by Lance Armstrong so I'm sure he didnt say it lightly when he publicly accused Wiggins of being a cheat as he did twice yesterday on Good Morning Britain. It will be interesting to see if Wiggins takes Piers Morgan or Walsh to court over those accusations.

It made me chuckle to see David Walsh's on screen graphic describe him as an 'Investigative Journalist' as he explained how he'd been embedded within Team Sky primarily to seek out drug stories and hadn't seen a thing to concern him all along ...

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

blazing_saddles

Shortfall wrote:

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

Nope.
Why feed the trolls when he doen't need to.

shortfall

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

Nope.
Why feed the trolls when he doen't need to.

Because his reputation and record of achievement from a lifetime in sport looks like it's been ruined by these allegations. If he hasn't cheated or broken any rules then surely it would be worth getting Piers Morgan to take the stand and prove him wrong?

RichN95.

Shortfall wrote:

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

It would be a quick way to regain his popularity with the British public

carbonclem

Shortfall wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days.

Really? He's also a multi award winning journalist and best selling author who was instrumental in the downfall of Lance Armstrong and exposing the state of the doping culture in cycling. He's had a long and distinguished career in sport journalism so I reckon he's earnt his chops. If anyone is qualified to comment on this saga then I'd say it was David Walsh. You and I (and anyone else who posts anonymously on this forum) however are just people with an opinion. He's previously been sued by Lance Armstrong so I'm sure he didnt say it lightly when he publicly accused Wiggins of being a cheat as he did twice yesterday on Good Morning Britain. It will be interesting to see if Wiggins takes Piers Morgan or Walsh to court over those accusations.

It made me chuckle to see David Walsh's on screen graphic describe him as an 'Investigative Journalist' as he explained how he'd been embedded within Team Sky primarily to seek out drug stories and hadn't seen a thing to concern him all along ...

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

I would think (and hope) not. PM is best ignored rather than to feed his ego and pomposity.

'He's not worth the chair .... " Doh!

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

I am not happy about team appointed doctors handing out TUEs

They don't. They apply to the relevant authority for them.

yeah but you need a doctor to apply for you don't you.... slight weasel wording there....

if the problem(or not) is in the oversight of those applications fine.

needs looking into

weezyswiss

CarbonClem wrote:

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

Do you think he'd go as hard at him as he did with Trump?

carbonclem

WeezySwiss wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

Do you think he'd go as hard at him as he did with Trump?

Ha! In which case Wiggins should do it, it would be a pushover!

blazing_saddles

Shortfall wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

Nope.
Why feed the trolls when he doen't need to.

Because his reputation and record of achievement from a lifetime in sport looks like it's been ruined by these allegations. If he hasn't cheated or broken any rules then surely it would be worth getting Piers Morgan to take the stand and prove him wrong?

He hasn't broken any rules. Everybody, including the CMS agree upon that.
The only person potentially worth suing is anonymous and protected.
Putting PM centre stage with media is something he would welcome with open arms, regardless of circumstances.

Pross

Shortfall wrote:

CarbonClem wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

gsk82 wrote:

David Walsh is just a babbling fool these days.

Really? He's also a multi award winning journalist and best selling author who was instrumental in the downfall of Lance Armstrong and exposing the state of the doping culture in cycling. He's had a long and distinguished career in sport journalism so I reckon he's earnt his chops. If anyone is qualified to comment on this saga then I'd say it was David Walsh. You and I (and anyone else who posts anonymously on this forum) however are just people with an opinion. He's previously been sued by Lance Armstrong so I'm sure he didnt say it lightly when he publicly accused Wiggins of being a cheat as he did twice yesterday on Good Morning Britain. It will be interesting to see if Wiggins takes Piers Morgan or Walsh to court over those accusations.

It made me chuckle to see David Walsh's on screen graphic describe him as an 'Investigative Journalist' as he explained how he'd been embedded within Team Sky primarily to seek out drug stories and hadn't seen a thing to concern him all along ...

Piers Morgan? He's an opportunist scumbag with no previous concern for ethics who is challenging Wiggins to face him in an 'exclusive' TV interview to boost his own ego and career. Further than that he cares for very little.

I don't care much for Piers Morgan myself as it goes. Do you think Wiggins will take either of them to court for calling him a cheat?

I don’t think he will as you can see the response now’he must be feeling under pressure, he’s trying to bully those who speak out against him just like Lance did’. That said if he doesn’t sue the same people will probably wonder why not if he claims to be innocent.

I think he should though, even if you accept the conclusion of the DCMS report they say there’s no evidence he broke the rules and I’m sure a court would accept you can’t cheat without breaking rules (there was a recent court case where the judge said ethics should not be considered in court) so Morgan would have a hard time justifying his rant I saw on Monday, I didn’t see the Walsh interview but when the report was originally published I heard him and assumed there was some new and damning evidence. Proving loss of reputation and probably loss of earnings should be pretty easy.