# So is Sir Bradley guilty of doping?



## Blue in Munich (Sep 23, 2016)

Seems the knives are out for Sir Bradley Wiggins;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37456623

No one actually appears to be directly calling him out, but they aren't painting a pretty picture, which is a great shame whichever way it falls; if he did, then cycling & Team Sky in particular are back under the microscope, if he didn't them his legacy & cycling will still be tainted by the allegations.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 24, 2016)

Surely they are already under the microscope? So many lies "no TUEs for allergies", "no needles" etc. Sky showing their "whiter than white" image is just a PR stunt, imo.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2016)

And now Tiger.


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Sep 24, 2016)

Blue in Munich said:



			Seems the knives are out for Sir Bradley Wiggins;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37456623

No one actually appears to be directly calling him out, but they aren't painting a pretty picture, which is a great shame whichever way it falls; if he did, then cycling & Team Sky in particular are back under the microscope, if he didn't them his legacy & cycling will still be tainted by the allegations.
		
Click to expand...

I hope not.

if he did then pro cycling again will again be going backwards towards the lance Armstrong days.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 24, 2016)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			I hope not.

if he did then pro cycling again will again be going backwards towards the lance Armstrong days.
		
Click to expand...

As do I.  Unfortunately for him his detractors have done just enough to strongly infer it without actually accusing him.  If he defends the "allegation" then assumption will be that he has something to hide, if he doesn't then the smell lingers.  Either way he loses.


----------



## Mr A (Sep 24, 2016)

If you look in to it, it's become very hard to make a case that many top level athletes in any sport are clean. I'm now of the mindset that they are all at it, and I'd go as far to stay that all elite level sport has a doping problem. 

I'm not an expert by any stretch but all the reading up on it that I have done, and with these further leaks coming out it seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## User62651 (Sep 24, 2016)

The timing of when he was taking these TUE's is what look dodgy, along with his saying in books that he was really healthy in 2012 so why did he need the steroid TUE's, few questions there. Best let him comment first I suppose but it seems that almost everyone in top UK Olympic sports has an excuse to take something that is otherwise on the banned list. Easy propaganda for the Russians who were banned from Rio to say...see it's not just us!


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 24, 2016)

maxfli65 said:



			The timing of when he was taking these TUE's is what look dodgy, along with his saying in books that he was really healthy in 2012 so why did he need the steroid TUE's, few questions there. Best let him comment first I suppose but it seems that almost everyone in top UK Olympic sports has an excuse to take something that is otherwise on the banned list. Easy propaganda for the Russians who were banned from Rio to say...see it's not just us!
		
Click to expand...

Yup to all of that, if what Bradley took was genuine. Then he should have no problems explaining the whats and whys. For a doctor to come out with this is not good. Why has it only come out now. What I cannot get my head around is why any sort of steroid is allowed in any sport. That in itself opens up the door to miss use.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 24, 2016)

It's the exact timing of the taking of the drugs that arises the most suspicion especially when it doesn't appear to have been taken at other times. These key times, with the drugs ability to reduce fatigue smells so wrong. However Wiggins is now in a classic catch 22 and if he says nothing he's labelled a cheat by some anyway and anything he says and their shouts of "he's protesting too much, he must have something to hide, he's guilty". 

I'm not convinced Sky or any team are totally clean and perhaps never have been and while Sky have (I think) made token efforts to lose drug takers off the team I wonder how much of a blind eye they've turned with their star names. It makes me think cycling is no further forward than it was after Armstrong was busted. Out of interest, would the testing in a world championship or olympic track event be more intense and rigorous than a road racing even like the Tour de France or in theory should they be equally robust


----------



## User62651 (Sep 24, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			It's the exact timing of the taking of the drugs that arises the most suspicion especially when it doesn't appear to have been taken at other times. These key times, with the drugs ability to reduce fatigue smells so wrong. However Wiggins is now in a classic catch 22 and if he says nothing he's labelled a cheat by some anyway and anything he says and their shouts of "he's protesting too much, he must have something to hide, he's guilty". 

I'm not convinced Sky or any team are totally clean and perhaps never have been and while Sky have (I think) made token efforts to lose drug takers off the team I wonder how much of a blind eye they've turned with their star names. It makes me think cycling is no further forward than it was after Armstrong was busted. Out of interest, would the testing in a world championship or olympic track event be more intense and rigorous than a road racing even like the Tour de France or in theory should they be equally robust
		
Click to expand...

Think its the same testing intensity and robustness for worlds, tours de france/giro d'italia etc as Olympics, pretty sure its down to each sports governing body (UCI for cycling), to organise and control doping tests. That now famous Irish journalist was asking all the pertinent questions about Armstrong long before his bust but was conveniently discredited at the time. Cycling is rife with doping, one of those sports along with athletics where it really does make a massive difference in performance and recovery.
Wiggins could be in bother, record tarnished already imo.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 24, 2016)

maxfli65 said:



			Think its the same testing intensity and robustness for worlds, tours de france/giro d'italia etc as Olympics, pretty sure its down to each sports governing body (UCI for cycling), to organise and control doping tests. That now famous Irish journalist was asking all the pertinent questions about Armstrong long before his bust but was conveniently discredited at the time. Cycling is rife with doping, one of those sports along with athletics where it really does make a massive difference in performance and recovery.
Wiggins could be in bother, *record tarnished already imo*.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to disagree but sadly I fear you are right.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 24, 2016)

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1938228-clinical

http://www.aafa.org/page/exercise-induced-asthma.aspx


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 24, 2016)

It's cobblers. He is no Armstrong.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 24, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			It's cobblers. He is no Armstrong.
		
Click to expand...

I'll agree with the second statement but I'd suggest the first one is at least up for debate on what has been presented so far.


----------



## larmen (Sep 24, 2016)

The whole TUE system is broken and open to abuse. If your own team doctor can prescribe you anything then it isn't right. Maybe being healthy on the day should be part of being competitive, not a right which on can maintain with any drug you want. It's not generating a level playing field as they claim, its creating a huge advantage.

Coincidentally, a lot of these guys are prescribed a steroid for asthma which I am taking for another thing. When asking my doctor if I will have a shot at winning the London marathon she said that I won't be able to run the marathon. Take up something else, like golf. Here I am.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 25, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Yup to all of that, if what Bradley took was genuine. Then he should have no problems explaining the whats and whys. For a doctor to come out with this is not good. Why has it only come out now. What I cannot get my head around is why any sort of steroid is allowed in any sport. That in itself opens up the door to miss use.
		
Click to expand...

Justin Rose and Charley Hull have also used TUEs. As for why it's come out then the Russian hackers have released these as revenge for Russian athletes getting banned from the Olympics.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 25, 2016)

Smacks of tax exemption 'v' tax evasion. Its legal but isn't morally right.


----------



## freddielong (Sep 25, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Yup to all of that, if what Bradley took was genuine. Then he should have no problems explaining the whats and whys. For a doctor to come out with this is not good. Why has it only come out now. What I cannot get my head around is why any sort of steroid is allowed in any sport. That in itself opens up the door to miss use.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly if taking this drug was the right thing to do and prescribing it, is what any Dr would have done then he has no questions to answer, I fear that this is not the case though.


----------



## IanM (Sep 25, 2016)

The trouble is now, no one knows for sure what is what...


----------



## walshawwhippet (Sep 25, 2016)

I take a steroidal based inhibitor for my asthma. Does that mean I can't play in the monthly medal. 
What's he supposed to do. Risk his life ?
Russian state sponsored hacking for propaganda purposes. Seams to be working though.


----------



## Papas1982 (Sep 25, 2016)

walshawwhippet said:



			I take a steroidal based inhibitor for my asthma. Does that mean I can't play in the monthly medal. 
What's he supposed to do. Risk his life ?
Russian state sponsored hacking for propaganda purposes. Seams to be working though. 

Click to expand...

When playing for fun, of course not.
BUT, If that steroid made you hit the ball further and feel less fatigue towards the end of your round and you were theoretically costing other people money due to an unfair advanategthen you shouldn't do it. 

Comparing professional athletes and amateurs lifestyles is pointless imo.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 25, 2016)

No I don't think he's guilty of doping.
 He is just one of those that have had their personal medical history hacked and released to cloud the picture and  divert attention from away what was a STATE ORGANISED drugs cheating program in Russia (and probably a few other Countries to)
It seems to be working.


----------



## larmen (Sep 25, 2016)

Wiggins isn't guilty of doping.
Starbucks and Amazon do their taxes properly.
All within the rules.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 25, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			No I don't think he's guilty of doping.
 He is just one of those that have had their personal medical history hacked and released to cloud the picture and  divert attention from away what was a STATE ORGANISED drugs cheating program in Russia (and probably a few other Countries to)
It seems to be working.
		
Click to expand...


Of course he isn't guilty. He's British!

If these records were those of a foreign rider most on here would say "He's at it" but because he is one of ours many will just dismiss it. Just like the female cyclist who missed three drugs tests and Christine Ohorogu.

All three of the above may well be innocent victims but I also think it is naive to assume that no British competitor would seek an unfair advantage.


----------



## Khamelion (Sep 25, 2016)

These TUE's or whatever they are called are simply wrong, a legalised way of cheating. The other British Cyclist wouldn't have been able to compete in an event because he was suffering from an asthma issue, so he puts in a TUE and gets to take a banned substance legally so he can compete. IF he was medically unable to compete he doesn't compete, if he wants to claim he is dope free he doesn't use a TUE.

With the anti doping council are whatever they are called allowing athletes to participate in their chosen sport while taking banned substances legally under the guise of these TUE, then all sport is potentially corrupt. No sport is can say it is 100% clean and drug free. 

What is the point of the anti doping council if an athlete can claim an illness and take a banned substance to let them compete, that is not a level playing field and not fair on the other athletes who aren't using TUE's and who are actually clean.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 25, 2016)

Khamelion said:



*These TUE's or whatever they are called are simply wrong, a legalised way of cheating*. The other British Cyclist wouldn't have been able to compete in an event because he was suffering from an asthma issue, so he puts in a TUE and gets to take a banned substance legally so he can compete. IF he was medically unable to compete he doesn't compete, *if he wants to claim he is dope free he doesn't use a TUE.*

With the anti doping council are whatever they are called allowing athletes to participate in their chosen sport while taking banned substances legally under the guise of these TUE, then all sport is potentially corrupt. No sport is can say it is 100% clean and drug free. 

What is the point of the anti doping council if an athlete can claim an illness and take a banned substance to let them compete, that is not a level playing field and not fair on the other athletes who aren't using TUE's and who are actually clean.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think the same of Justin Rose and Charley Hull?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2016)

So drugs to help people breath when they have asthma issues are now doping ? 

Should I give back all my winnings and trophies due to being on Asthma medication for 30 years now 

Asthma drugs don't give you "extra" - they allow you to breath normally


----------



## rulefan (Sep 25, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Exactly if taking this drug was the right thing to do and prescribing it, is what any Dr would have done then he has no questions to answer, I fear that this is not the case though.
		
Click to expand...

Guilty until proved innocent


----------



## Simbo (Sep 25, 2016)

Sadly I kinda think all elite athletes are looking for minuscule ways to enhance performance, especially endurance athletes and are all looking for ways to bend the rules to gain an advantage. Sometimes I think it's just a matter of luck if you get caught or get away with it. Sometimes it's not who is the best athlete but who has the best chemist that wins.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 25, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			These TUE's or whatever they are called are simply wrong, a legalised way of cheating. The other British Cyclist wouldn't have been able to compete in an event because he was suffering from an asthma issue, so he puts in a TUE and gets to take a banned substance legally so he can compete. IF he was medically unable to compete he doesn't compete, if he wants to claim he is dope free he doesn't use a TUE.

With the anti doping council are whatever they are called allowing athletes to participate in their chosen sport while taking banned substances legally under the guise of these TUE, then all sport is potentially corrupt. No sport is can say it is 100% clean and drug free. 

What is the point of the anti doping council if an athlete can claim an illness and take a banned substance to let them compete, that is not a level playing field and not fair on the other athletes who aren't using TUE's and who are actually clean.
		
Click to expand...




Hacker Khan said:



			Do you think the same of Justin Rose and Charley Hull?
		
Click to expand...

Justin Rose would appear to be a slightly different kettle of fish (link to source under the quote);

Rose's TUE is for an anti-inflammatory drug he took to treat a back injury that caused him to miss several weeks of action in May and June, while almost all the other British TUEs are for fairly routine asthma and allergy prescriptions.
http://www.sportinglife.com/other-s...-and-rafael-nadal-have-medical-records-leaked

I'd say Rose is different as a) he would appear from the quote not to be competing at the time (although I'd concede the quote can be read more than one way) and b) to my way of thinking golf is not an endurance sport in the same way as cycling, so I'm not seeing the same potential advantage here as Sir Bradley *may* have benefitted from.


----------



## One Planer (Sep 25, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So drugs to help people breath when they have asthma issues are now doping ? 

Should I give back all my winnings and trophies due to being on Asthma medication for 30 years now 

Asthma drugs don't give you "extra" - they allow you to breath normally
		
Click to expand...

You wanna tell Piers Morgan that Phil. 

Over on Twitter he appears to be confusing his own opinion with fact.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 25, 2016)

From the article in the telegraph, what Wiggins was taking might actually be detrimental to performance, but obviously that's ignored by the press in general.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2016)

One Planer said:



			You wanna tell Piers Morgan that Phil. 

Over on Twitter he appears to be confusing his own opinion with fact.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much to be expected from that lowlife scum 

He was mocking people with mental illnesses the other day 

He is the godfather of trolls - one day someone will react violently to him when he goes too far


----------



## Khamelion (Sep 25, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Do you think the same of Justin Rose and Charley Hull?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, yes I would, if an athlete is medically unfit to participate in their chosen sport then it's quite simple, they do not take part in the event and wait until they are fit enough to participate without the need for a TUE.



Liverpoolphil said:



			So drugs to help people breath when they have asthma issues are now doping ? 

Should I give back all my winnings and trophies due to being on Asthma medication for 30 years now 

Asthma drugs don't give you "extra" - they allow you to breath normally
		
Click to expand...

No, as someone else wrote above the difference between the average club golfer who is playing for fun as a hobby, is not comparable to those professional athletes who are playing for financial gain, or who are paid for their services.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 25, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Of course he isn't guilty. He's British!

If these records were those of a foreign rider most on here would say "He's at it" but because he is one of ours many will just dismiss it. Just like the female cyclist who missed three drugs tests and Christine Ohorogu.

All three of the above may well be innocent victims but I also think it is naive to assume that no British competitor would seek an unfair advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Nationality has nothing to do with it. Personally I would ban ALL drug cheats for life, and have a list of permissible drugs only not banned drugs. I actually don't particularly like Wiggins either, but I maintain that all this is just a distraction and smoke screen to deflect from State organised doping.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			Yes, yes I would, if an athlete is medically unfit to participate in their chosen sport then it's quite simple, they do not take part in the event and wait until they are fit enough to participate without the need for a TUE.



No, as someone else wrote above the difference between the average club golfer who is playing for fun as a hobby, is not comparable to those professional athletes who are playing for financial gain, or who are paid for their services.
		
Click to expand...

Asthma medication doesn't give someone an advantage - it allows people to compete on a level playing field , it allows people to just breath normally when they are struggling 

Why should people be restricted medically ?

Should people no longer be able to take painkillers then ? 

No medication at all for any sportsman then ?


----------



## larmen (Sep 25, 2016)

If the playing field is level, who was the last winner of the Tour de France that didn't have asthma?
Statistically fewer people have asthma than that not have it, should be easy to find one.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 25, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			Yes, yes I would, if an athlete is medically unfit to participate in their chosen sport then it's quite simple, they do not take part in the event and wait until they are fit enough to participate without the need for a TUE.
		
Click to expand...

What about someone that isn't currently able to compete because of their condition but use of a "banned" drug could enable them to recover enough to be able to compete? Such as it seems with Justin Rose who wasn't competing at the time due to injury but the drug given helped the recovery from the injury rather than being performance enhancing. Or in a life or death situation where that drug is given in a life saving capacity. How long should they have to wait after being given the drug before they are allowed to compete again?


----------



## Khamelion (Sep 25, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			What about someone that isn't currently able to compete because of their condition but use of a "banned" drug could enable them to recover enough to be able to compete? Such as it seems with Justin Rose who wasn't competing at the time due to injury but the drug given helped the recovery from the injury rather than being performance enhancing. Or in a life or death situation where that drug is given in a life saving capacity. How long should they have to wait after being given the drug before they are allowed to compete again?
		
Click to expand...

In a life saving situation, then obviously the drug needs to be administered


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 25, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			In a life saving situation, then obviously the drug needs to be administered
		
Click to expand...

So what about if the athlete is injured and it will aid the recovery rather than enhance performance? In both situations how long would they have to wait to compete again? Until the drug can no longer be detected in their system? Or until the known time duration benefits of the drug has passed?


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 25, 2016)

Three doctors said Wiggins was right to use the drug. That's good enough for me.


----------



## JamesR (Sep 26, 2016)

Khamelion said:



			In a life saving situation, then obviously the drug needs to be administered
		
Click to expand...

I have to use mine everyday as a life saving drug, because my medical notes state that I have "life threatening asthma". Where would I stand on this? Afterall, my damaged lungs, from childhood emphysema, struggle to let me breathe "normally" even after using all my various drugs.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2016)

not in my eyes


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 26, 2016)

There are certainly plenty of questions to be answered.

Why was the drug used only on the three occasions before TdF? Are there, as suggested by some doctors, performance enhancing benefits to this drug? Why, in his book, did he not refer to this treatment and, in fact, suggest that prior to his win he was in perfect condition?

There may well be good answers to all the questions but I am afraid that until those answers are supplied the suspicion will remain.


----------



## NWJocko (Sep 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			There are certainly plenty of questions to be answered.

Why was the drug used only on the three occasions before TdF? Are there, as suggested by some doctors, performance enhancing benefits to this drug? Why, in his book, did he not refer to this treatment and, in fact, suggest that prior to his win he was in perfect condition?

There may well be good answers to all the questions but I am afraid that until those answers are supplied the suspicion will remain.
		
Click to expand...

As you say, without knowing the context and medical history (i.e. he may have tried other medicines and found this to be most effective) it's hard to say and will draw suspicion.

Re the medicine he took, you don't need a TUE out of competition so he may have been taking it regularly but you only see the TUE for use in competition so it may not have been used "only on the three occasions before TdF"........

I could be wrong but I think the principle(s) of the TUE's is that they can't offer any "performance enhancement" so you can't get EPO on TUE for example.  

I'm a sceptic about this sort of stuff but there are a lot of people out with pitchforks demanding "answers" but asking the wrong questions......

I've not searched out much of the coverage but have the UCI or anti-doping agencies made any comment?

What it does show is that the hacking organisation have succeeded 100% in diverting attention from the Russian issue!!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 26, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			What it does show is that the hacking organisation have succeeded 100% in diverting attention from the Russian issue!! 

Click to expand...


Not as far as I am concerned.

This story is in addition to the State sponsored cheating in Russia, not instead of. That one still has plenty of mileage in it and try as hard as they (the Russians) may try it is not going away.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 26, 2016)

Is this use of a drug to control asthma that far removed from what Sharapova did?


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 26, 2016)

I'm unconvinced either way!

His interview on BBC raised more questions than it answered!

I know he is an asthma sufferer - though there was certainly a time in UK where a slight chesty wheeze seemed to be diagnosed as asthma!

His statement that the use of this drug (simply) brought him back to 'a level playing field' could certainly be considered as using it for (illegal) 'performance enhancing'!

The TUE system is absolutely essential though!


----------



## patricks148 (Sep 27, 2016)

Back when i raced it was widely assumed that an asthma inhaler would improve your performance. Weather its true or not i couldn't tell, you but remember a few having them. I remember the thinking was they enlarged your alveoli hence increased your lung capacity in a healthy person, that is.

As from Bradley, I hope he is clean.


----------



## User62651 (Sep 27, 2016)

Wonder how Alain Baxter feels who lost his Olympic bronze ski slalom medal because he inhaled a Vicks inhaler for a cold in USA whilst competing, compared to what Wiggins, Farah and others have done 'legally' to win olympic medals it seems a very tough call....... even 14 years later. 
Too many individual sports have lost so much credibility, every event is rife with cheats it seems and there's no way they'll catch enough, then when they are caught they're serving too short bans then coming back to win again. When someone wins in an exceptional time/distance etc nowadays it's not 'well done', it's 'I wonder if they're clean' or for females even if they're actually 100% female etc. The Semenya thing in the Olympics was ridiculous for example. Powers that be can't get on top of this and you wonder looking back just how many old world records amd Olympic golds were 'chemically assisted'. Has finished athletics as a credible sport and cycling not far behind. Not good.


----------



## Slab (Sep 29, 2016)

Iâ€™m not sure I understand the TUE thing

If you have an underlying medical/physical condition (either temporarily or ongoing) that prevents you being the best in the world at something (either temporarily or ongoing) then boohoo, you need to accept the fact that if you compete youâ€™ll probably get beaten by someone stronger/fitter/faster who doesnâ€™t have any medical/physical issues that'll hamper them 

You should not be permitted to take substances for a range of ailments just to give you any â€˜fairâ€™ chance. Being competitive is not a 'right' and as such if you suffer from asthma then your expectation should be that youâ€™re unlikely to ever win the TDF just the same as if you have an overactive fat gland!

Maybe TUE drug assisted is a whole new category alongside Sport and Disability Sport for people with conditions that require drug management


----------



## User62651 (Mar 5, 2018)

In light of this latest report from our own DCMS http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081 is his legacy tainted now? The report seems like a 'Not Proven' verdict you get in Scottish courts - i.e. we think you did it but we cant prove it type thing. Between him and Froome and cycling generally, not good - mud sticks and all that.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

What they did was not illegal and not against the rules. Like it or not they stretched the rules and used them to their advantage, ethically wrong, possibly morally wrong but not didn't break the rules.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 5, 2018)

If WADA and the other drug enforcement agencies found nothing to punish them for, I see no benefit in this carrying on.  I donâ€™t doubt Team Sky have sailed very close to the wind in all aspects of maximising their riders performance, but if they havenâ€™t broken the rules what is there to complain about?
Sounds to me like those in power would prefer the â€œplucky Brit â€œ tag over â€œwinnerâ€


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

The problem is Team Skyy have always painted themselves whiter than white and this concludes their more a shady grey than white.


----------



## sawtooth (Mar 5, 2018)

Yep guilty as sin.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 5, 2018)

He has not broken any rules - he and his medical team have clearly pushed the rules to the limits.  

But in golf are we not encouraged to know the rules inside out so that we can push them to the limits and to our greatest advantage - whilst maintaining honesty about what we are doing when we do so.


----------



## Dibby (Mar 5, 2018)

I posted similar in another thread, but at the elite level, I would bet everything I have that none of the top athletes are clean. For some reason this is not palatable to the general public, or the sponsors, so we have an image of clean sport and a few cheaters. In reality, the anti-doping rules act more as a limit to how much you can dope, rathe r than stop it. Of course, some athletes or teams are more sophisticated, better connected than others, but everyone at the top is at it to some level. 

Some sports and individuals are targetted more than others, cycling has always been in the crosshairs, whereas the freaks playing rugby, for example, are somehow given a free pass for the most part.


----------



## drdel (Mar 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He has not broken any rules - he and his medical team have clearly pushed the rules to the limits.  

But in golf are we not encouraged to know the rules inside out so that we can push them to the limits and to our greatest advantage - whilst maintaining honesty about what we are doing when we do so.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. In every competition environment particpants push the boundaries - its getting the 'edge'. Take a squint at motor sport, power boat racist, horses and greyhound racing,  I'll wager every team is seeking to be flying as close to  the rules as possible.

accusing BW is just a failure to recognise reality. He has not broken not the rules of his sport. Sore grapes, methinks


----------



## User62651 (Mar 5, 2018)

drdel said:



			I agree. In every competition environment particpants push the boundaries - its getting the 'edge'. Take a squint at motor sport, power boat racist, horses and greyhound racing,  I'll wager every team is seeking to be flying as close to  the rules as possible.

accusing BW is just a failure to recognise reality. He has not broken not the rules of his sport.* Sore grapes, methinks*

Click to expand...

If this was coming from Russia or another race team I'd see sour grapes, but this is from our own select committe of MPs who have no reason to want to discredit a UK sporting hero, everyone loses. I'm glad we look into such matters as a country though and dont cover them up. Does come at a cost of course.


----------



## pokerjoke (Mar 5, 2018)

It saddens me to read the report today because i really felt Wiggins would be clean when he won the tour
Of course he and Sky have a right to reply and tell their side of the story,i know this has been done but i mean in response to todays news.

If Wiggins was and Sky were pushing boundaries theres no doubt others on the team were to.

This brings Chris Froome in to the equation because he was actually battering Wiggins on a daily basis i recall,or maybe Froome was way better and clean so Wiggins needed a boost.


----------



## Dan2501 (Mar 5, 2018)

Would be amazed if Froome was clean. Tested positive for salbutamol, and is another elite cyclist that happens to have terrible asthma (funny that). Elite cycling is extremely stressful on the body and to put in the sort of times that these guys put in at the Tour De France just cannot be possible if clean. Froome's putting in similar times (even surpassing some) to Armstrong who was juiced to the gills on everything he could get his hands on, drugs at the forefront of technology.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 5, 2018)

drdel said:



			I agree. In every competition environment particpants push the boundaries - its getting the 'edge'. Take a squint at motor sport, power boat racist, horses and greyhound racing,  I'll wager every team is seeking to be flying as close to  the rules as possible.

accusing BW is just a failure to recognise reality. He has not broken not the rules of his sport. Sore grapes, methinks
		
Click to expand...

A few years ago I had a suspected heart attack (it wasn't) but nonetheless I was put on beta-blockers for a while.  Now these reduce anxiety and the effect of adrenaline on the heart - and I was thinking - well what is a big issue or golfers looking at a good score?  Yes - anxiety, stress and adrenaline pumping - and I did wonder whether my golf under pressure could be improved in a comp if I took beta-blockers - even if I didn't really need them...?


----------



## drdel (Mar 5, 2018)

^^^  I fear we're searching for the world/people to be 'sin free, virgin and pure' and, unsurprisingly, we'll be disappointed to find it isn't.

Moral and ethics are subjective norms that can vary across different ethnicities/societies: laws and rules are the fixtures. Having different morals or ethics while it may disgust/upset other is not a crime punishment only comes if it breaks our laws.

BW did what he did within the rules so he should not be publically punished or denigrated.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 5, 2018)

drdel said:



			^^^  I fear we're searching for the world/people to be 'sin free, virgin and pure' and, unsurprisingly, we'll be disappointed to find it isn't.

Moral and ethics are subjective norms that can vary across different ethnicities/societies: laws and rules are the fixtures. Having different morals or ethics while it may disgust/upset other is not a crime punishment only comes if it breaks our laws.

*BW did what he did within the rules so he should not be publically punished or denigrated.*

Click to expand...

correct 100% IMO


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

That clown on talk sport is having a go at them now Adrian whatever his name is.

They did What They had to do to win within the boundaries, the problem for Sky and Brailsford is they are now ethically bankrupt as it was them that set the bar, their own bar on ethics.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 5, 2018)

RandG said:



			That clown on talk sport is having a go at them now Adrian whatever his name is.

They did What They had to do to win within the boundaries, the problem for Sky and Brailsford is they are now ethically bankrupt as it was them that set the bar, their own bar on ethics.
		
Click to expand...

Why are they? They haven't broken any rules or had riders failing doping tests.

Back in the 90's, I did a lot of mountain bike racing. In my club there was a very talented nice lad who made it onto a couple of the smaller pro teams. He was invited over to Belgium where after a short while was told "he was good, but to be better he would need to start injecting". The implication was obvious, and he duly gave up. 
Sky have upset the Euro cycling teams and these teams cannot stand it that a British based team has come in and taken their winnings and glory. 
I can't help but feel the MP's are doing nothing but the bidding of the Pro cycling teams, and looking at the wrong side.
Go look at US Postal as they were, or Festina as they were. Try and find a clean member in those teams instead of trying to throw dirt over someone who hasn't broke the rules.
A couple of years back I was lucky enough to be the apartment of Johan Bruyneel, and was very fortunate to have a good chat with him. It was very enlightening.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Why are they?
		
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a very keen cycling fan, I've followed the TdF since the late 80s so not a johnny come lately fan. However, [FONT=&quot]they didn't technically break the rules (though they bent them quite a bit), and ii) the drugs we're talking about are widely used without sanction in many other sports. But Sky set themselves up to be whiter than white, and they're clearly at best a very mucky grey. They're not going to lose any titles or medals over this, but it's hard to see how Dave Brailsford's position is tenable. And with this and the on-going Froome saga, we could be looking at the end of Team Sky sooner rather than later.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ethics have a place in this because Team Sky made them have a place in it. They promised zero-tolerance, adhering to the spirit of the rules and not just the letter, and more. They clearly haven't done any of those things.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Also, even without the Jiffy bag it's not just a matter of ethics. The implication is that medical conditions were either exaggerated or falsified in order to obtain TUEs so that performance-enhancing substances could be taken "legally". Deceiving people to get a TUE absolutely is against the rules, and could well see the doctors in question struck off, in addition to any sporting sanctions.[/FONT]


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 5, 2018)

RandG said:



			Don't get me wrong, I'm a very keen cycling fan, I've followed the TdF since the late 80s so not a johnny come lately fan. However, they didn't technically break the rules (though they bent them quite a bit), and ii) the drugs we're talking about are widely used without sanction in many other sports. But Sky set themselves up to be whiter than white, and they're clearly at best a very mucky grey. They're not going to lose any titles or medals over this, but it's hard to see how Dave Brailsford's position is tenable. And with this and the on-going Froome saga, we could be looking at the end of Team Sky sooner rather than later.

Ethics have a place in this because Team Sky made them have a place in it. They promised zero-tolerance, adhering to the spirit of the rules and not just the letter, and more. They clearly haven't done any of those things.

Also, even without the Jiffy bag it's not just a matter of ethics. The implication is that medical conditions were either exaggerated or falsified in order to obtain TUEs so that performance-enhancing substances could be taken "legally". Deceiving people to get a TUE absolutely is against the rules, and could well see the doctors in question struck off, in addition to any sporting sanctions.

Click to expand...

I can't quite see how someone can be "murky grey." They've either broken a rule or they haven't. Have they broken a rule?


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I can't quite see how someone can be "murky grey." They've either broken a rule or they haven't. Have they broken a rule?
		
Click to expand...


Have they broken a rule, no, so what's the big deal ? Check every paper and news broadcast and ask that very same question, what's the big deal !


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 5, 2018)

RandG said:



			Have they broken a rule, no, so what's the big deal ? Check every paper and news broadcast and ask that very same question, what's the big deal !
		
Click to expand...

You answered the question, they havenâ€™t broken a rule.

Should anyone who uses an energy drink be retrospectively castigated?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 5, 2018)

Anyone else wondering if these evidence-free allegations by our MP's would have been made if they didn't have the luxury of parliamentary privilege?


----------



## Wilson (Mar 5, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Anyone else wondering if these evidence-free allegations by our MP's would have been made if they didn't have the luxury of parliamentary privilege?
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ve not looked into the story too much, as not a cycling fan, but Iâ€™d like to know what expertise the MPâ€™s have to make their accusations?


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 5, 2018)

Blue in Munich said:



			Anyone else wondering if these evidence-free allegations by our MP's would have been made if they didn't have the luxury of parliamentary privilege?
		
Click to expand...

I like the irony of MP's passing judgement on ethics :rofl:


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			You answered the question, they havenâ€™t broken a rule.

Should anyone who uses an energy drink be retrospectively castigated?
		
Click to expand...


I think you are missing my point, it's not me that's shouting from the rooftops about having BW dethroned etc etc. all I'm saying is, if you shout from the rooftops that you are whiter than white and it turn out, actually you're not really then, you're going to come on for a lot of criticism.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 5, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			I like the irony of MP's passing judgement on ethics :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, bit like childcare tips from King Herod. :mmm:


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 5, 2018)

If heâ€™s got asma then heâ€™s not doing anything wrong .
If he hasnâ€™t but is still taking a drug that he physically dosnt need but uses it to gain an advantage heâ€™s cheating.

Mps taking the moral high ground though is laughable but they do have very thick skin.

It just seems to me lately all you have to do is accuse someone you donâ€™t need to prove anything and they are tainted for life.


----------



## patricks148 (Mar 5, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Why are they? They haven't broken any rules or had riders failing doping tests.

Back in the 90's, I did a lot of mountain bike racing. In my club there was a very talented nice lad who made it onto a couple of the smaller pro teams. He was invited over to Belgium where after a short while was told "he was good, but to be better he would need to start injecting". The implication was obvious, and he duly gave up. 
Sky have upset the Euro cycling teams and these teams cannot stand it that a British based team has come in and taken their winnings and glory. 
I can't help but feel the MP's are doing nothing but the bidding of the Pro cycling teams, and looking at the wrong side.
Go look at US Postal as they were, or Festina as they were. Try and find a clean member in those teams instead of trying to throw dirt over someone who hasn't broke the rules.
A couple of years back I was lucky enough to be the apartment of Johan Bruyneel, and was very fortunate to have a good chat with him. It was very enlightening.
		
Click to expand...

a fair assessment, i have to question Why MP's have made these statements, esp as no wrong doing has been proved.


----------



## larmen (Mar 5, 2018)

My best guess is that the GMC will be going after Dr. Freedman, he will not want to be the fall guy, and then the truth comes out and even the biggest sky fanboys will have to admit they are wrong.

Circumstantial evidence was enough to bring Lance down who to this time still failed less drug tests that Froome.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 5, 2018)

Wilson said:



			Iâ€™ve not looked into the story too much, as not a cycling fan, but Iâ€™d like to know what expertise the MPâ€™s have to make their accusations?
		
Click to expand...

You and me both. Like you not a cycling fan per se but have enjoyed the British domination of the Tour in recent years. What do these MP's know about it and even if they have called in "experts" this seems a distinctly one sided account of affairs which seems from a distance designed to discredit Wiggins and Team Sky regardless


----------



## larmen (Mar 5, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			You and me both. Like you not a cycling fan per se but have enjoyed the British domination of the Tour in recent years. What do these MP's know about it and even if they have called in "experts" this seems a distinctly one sided account of affairs which seems from a distance designed to discredit Wiggins and Team Sky regardless
		
Click to expand...

They invited Sir David, Sir Brad and Dr. Freeman to hear their point of view. Sir David, master of detail and marginal gains, couldn't remember anything, Sir Brad chose not to put his side forward, Dr. Freedman was suddenly miraculously ill and couldn't attend.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

larmen said:



			Circumstantial evidence was enough to bring Lance down who to this time still failed less drug tests that Froome.
		
Click to expand...

Well....actually Lance brought himself down.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 5, 2018)

Not my words but from a man "in the know" 




[FONT=&quot]As for Sky, we now know:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) they were systematically using prescription drugs to enhance performance, albeit in a manner that isn't provably illegal (un-provable in large part because the relevant medical records were lost).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) their team principal lied, under oath, about the team's doping programme.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) their lead rider tested positive for excessive use of a prescription drug last year, and is probably facing a doping ban.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ii) makes Dave Brailsford's position un-tenable. And if Froome ends up getting banned, it's quite possible that the team could fold. (The sponsors will almost certainly have "exit clauses" in the event that titles are lost because of doping offences; the only question is whether or not they'll exercise them.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will also be interesting to see what happens with the team if Froome is banned. Even if he only has to sit out for a short period, or even gets a back-dated ban, under Sky's zero-tolerance policy he should be fired from the team. But will they really fire their lynchpin? We'll see...[/FONT]

Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Mar 5, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			You and me both. Like you not a cycling fan per se but have enjoyed the British domination of the Tour in recent years. What do these MP's know about it and even if they have called in "experts" this seems a distinctly one sided account of affairs which seems from a distance designed to discredit Wiggins and Team Sky regardless
		
Click to expand...

Maybe should have done some research before you commented.

The report would appear to be based upon pretty extensive evidence gathering.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 5, 2018)

â€œIt was within the rules so he has done nothing wrongâ€
Bradley Wiggins ?

This was the defence used by most MPs during the expenses scandal.

Just wondering if any on This committee used this defence , anyone know???


----------



## larmen (Mar 5, 2018)

Reading some more into it, there is a whistle blower known by name to the committee. So you have one person speaking under oath to an investigating body, and another giving an interview on the BBC. Who to believe?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 5, 2018)

larmen said:



			Reading some more into it, there is a whistle blower known by name to the committee. So you have one person speaking under oath to an investigating body, and another giving an interview on the BBC. Who to believe?
		
Click to expand...

Lots of people tell lies under oath!


----------



## Imurg (Mar 6, 2018)

It would be a lot more believable if this person was named.
Anonymous sources hold little credibility with me.
How do we know it's not just someone with a grudge?
And does anyone truly believe that all professional sports people don't push the barriers and bend the rules when they need to..?


----------



## larmen (Mar 6, 2018)

He is known to parliament. So he isnâ€™t anonymous, he is â€˜protectedâ€™.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 6, 2018)

Imurg said:



			It would be a lot more believable if this person was named.
Anonymous sources hold little credibility with me.
How do we know it's not just someone with a grudge?
And does anyone truly believe that all professional sports people don't push the barriers and bend the rules when they need to..?
		
Click to expand...

^^^ This. If you're going to accuse someone of something at least have the balls to do it to their face, metaphorically speaking.

As for the protection of parliamentary privilege, that should extend both ways and anything said to a committee should remain private until such time as a formal case is raised with the governing body.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

Interesting split in views.

Not many on the fence, either think BW is competely innocent of any wrongdoing or guilty as sin. Anyone on the fence?

Aside from innoncence or guilt imo his own defence via a media interview with a sad face saying 'feel sorry for my kids who're getting stick' or 'I'd have more rights if I murdered someone' doesn't wash, just trying a way to soft soap the public. He should be sticking to facts or saying nowt and immediately getting his lawyers onto a libel case gainst his accusers to defend his and his teams reputation against the report's findings. Fact he isn't is odd in itself and shows how weak his case is. I also think the MP committees lawyers will have been all over the report to make sure it is legally worded correctly. 

There are so many holes in the BW/Team Sky story their lawyers would not be able to easily defend him/TeamSky.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 6, 2018)

larmen said:



			He is known to parliament. So he isnâ€™t anonymous, he is â€˜protectedâ€™.
		
Click to expand...

And itâ€™s very easy to throw mud without cross examination and totally changes the dynamic of the claims, that now BW has to prove his innocence rather than the claimant proving his claim.

I hope the select committee and this person are so determined in their pursuit of every other successful British sportsperson who has pushed boundaries without breaking the rules and finished the best, obviously with the aim  of just having plucky Brits over winners.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			And itâ€™s very easy to throw mud without cross examination and totally changes the dynamic of the claims, that now BW has to prove his innocence rather than the claimant proving his claim.

I hope the select committee and this person are so determined in their pursuit of *every other successful British sportsperson* who has pushed boundaries without breaking the rules and finished the best, obviously with the aim  of just having plucky Brits over winners.
		
Click to expand...

Bit emotive, really just distance cycling and athletics that have problems with some high profile UK athletes like sprinters Chambers/Christie and cyclists Millar/Froome who *did* test positive *or* those that missed sucessive tests for a ban such as Ohoroghu/Lewis-Francis. 

All the rest are low profile except Rio Ferdinand who also missed tests for a ban. Less so skier Baxter lost an Olympic bronze for ephydrine in a cold remedy.

That's really it for the UK since the 80s when testing really got going.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 6, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			Bit emotive, really just distance cycling and athletics that have problems with some high profile UK athletes like sprinters Chambers/Christie and cyclists Millar/Froome who *did* test positive *or* those that missed sucessive tests for a ban such as Ohoroghu/Lewis-Francis. 

All the rest are low profile except Rio Ferdinand who also missed tests for a ban. Less so skier Baxter lost an Olympic bronze for ephydrine in a cold remedy.

That's really it for the UK since the 80s when testing really got going.
		
Click to expand...

The head of UKAD was on the radio this morning, and was quite emphatic they found no evidence of wrong doing.
So are we saying that UKAD are not up to the job?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			Interesting split in views.

Not many on the fence, either think BW is competely innocent of any wrongdoing or guilty as sin. Anyone on the fence?
		
Click to expand...

Yup, me. I'm a bit confused. Wiggins et al are shouting innocent and I desperately want to believe them. The story has holes though and why would he not go in front of the committee? Someone pointed out earlier that Brailsford is the master of detail yet on key issues he "can't remember". Saying all this the committee are not shouting cheat, they are shouting 'not sure, looks a bit iffy'. The problem is 'looks a bit iffy' doesn't satisfy anyone.

The rod that Team Sky made here is the claim to run clean. They made that their USP. That means Persil clean, not corner shop own brand clean. As things stand they are looking more corner shop.

I can easily be swayed either way on this and would love to be swayed towards Team Sky, Wiggins etc.


----------



## Reemul (Mar 6, 2018)

So the rider has asthma, when he is suffering from it he gets and exemption and can take drugs that would otherwise be banned from use.

These drugs can improve recovery and performance. The doctor says he needs them as his asthma is bad so he gets big dose to help him recover, the feeling is his asthma isn't really bad but as long as the doc says he is then he can take the drugs.

This in itself sounds like a system open to abuse for all riders unless of course you don't have an illness to fall back on?

I believe all riders would do anything to gain an advantage even if it means being morally wrong and pushing the boundaries of what is legal and would use the it's no really illegal. To me it seems like a loophole which needs to be closed. Who are the Docotors that can sign this off and should they be associated with a specific team, maybe it's better if the doctors come in under the anti doping side of the system and supply the relevant diagnosis with no bias to their team.

I believe Sky have been doing this and the reason I believe this is due the a lot of the reasons given above, refusing to testify, forgetting what's in the bag, no records be kept. All this stinks, it's the age old way to cover yourself and if you have nothing to hide you don't need to cover up anything. You know the old no smoke without fire adage seems more than relevant here.

Certainly it allows individuals to say, I don't cheat, I don't take drugs and I only follow the rules, I mean if anyone could be cheating it's the Doc saying he needs the TUE when he doesn't even the rider can justify to himself if the doc says then I needed it, who am I to argue with him.

regardless it's a mess, BW's legacy is now tainted, Froome is on a drugs investigation also. So much for whiter than white British cycling, it's all a little bit smelly and dirty isn't it.


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 6, 2018)

There should be no grey area here, it should be black or white. Either the team or cyclist took drugs, legal, illegal, prescription or otherwise or they didn't.

If they did, ban them simple.

If they didn't, why all the furore?

AN example...

Okay so there will be people that will say, but he has asthma he can take a legal drug within given guidelines and remain legal, to help him breath. Hang on a mo, someone with asthma picks a sport where they know they will get out of breath but are allowed to take a performance enhancing drug to help them breath because the governing body of the sport allows it because it is within the guidelines written. But isn't that the same as cheating? 1mg of a drug is allowed, but 1.1mg is deemed illegal and cheating, it's all a nonsense.


----------



## Dibby (Mar 6, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			There should be no grey area here, it should be black or white. Either the team or cyclist took drugs, legal, illegal, prescription or otherwise or they didn't.

If they did, ban them simple.

If they didn't, why all the furore?

AN example...

Okay so there will be people that will say, but he has asthma he can take a legal drug within given guidelines and remain legal, to help him breath. Hang on a mo, someone with asthma picks a sport where they know they will get out of breath but are allowed to take a performance enhancing drug to help them breath because the governing body of the sport allows it because it is within the guidelines written. But isn't that the same as cheating? *1mg of a drug is allowed, but 1.1mg is deemed illegal and cheating, it's all a nonsense.*

Click to expand...

This applies to both sport and life in general.

In sport, caffeine is a known performance enhancer but is fine. Female athletes can use contraceptives to alter their hormone profiles at the right time to peak for events, again fine. Yet, other substances are not fine. What is allowed and not allowed is very arbitrary.

Many recreational drugs are banned, yet other equally damaging substances like alcohol or tobacco are fine. 

All a nonsense really!


----------



## Reemul (Mar 6, 2018)

Khamelion said:



			There should be no grey area here, it should be black or white. Either the team or cyclist took drugs, legal, illegal, prescription or otherwise or they didn't.

If they did, ban them simple.

If they didn't, why all the furore?

AN example...

Okay so there will be people that will say, but he has asthma he can take a legal drug within given guidelines and remain legal, to help him breath. Hang on a mo, someone with asthma picks a sport where they know they will get out of breath but are allowed to take a performance enhancing drug to help them breath because the governing body of the sport allows it because it is within the guidelines written. But isn't that the same as cheating? 1mg of a drug is allowed, but 1.1mg is deemed illegal and cheating, it's all a nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree, life and the real world is not made up of black and white but lots of shades of grey. It's the shades of grey we evaluate and try to decide if we need to make them black or white.

Are we saying that you have Asthma and your Doctor says that you need drugs due to your condition because you are unwell but really you don't but the rules say if your Doctor says you need them then it's ok to have them (also how much can you give them, say they only need a small amount but you give them a bigger amount as you know it has a side effect of improving performance) it is not cheating or is it cheating or is it a grey area that needs looking at? All in all it looks like a mess to me.

Personally if you aren't well then you can have the drugs but you don't get to compete because taking the drugs to make you feel better can also improve performance. Sure it's hard if you miss out but no harder than any other person missing out due to illness/sickness/injury.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 6, 2018)

The National Lottery awarded millions to British Cycling.
Perhaps smaller grass root development awards would be a better way forward than making rich athletes richer and glory hunting medals by devious means.


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 6, 2018)

Reemul said:



			I don't agree, life and the real world is not made up of black and white but lots of shades of grey. It's the shades of grey we evaluate and try to decide if we need to make them black or white.

Are we saying that you have Asthma and your Doctor says that you need drugs due to your condition because you are unwell but really you don't but the rules say if your Doctor says you need them then it's ok to have them (also how much can you give them, say they only need a small amount but you give them a bigger amount as you know it has a side effect of improving performance) it is not cheating or is it cheating or is it a grey area that needs looking at? All in all it looks like a mess to me.

Personally if you aren't well then you can have the drugs but you don't get to compete because taking the drugs to make you feel better can also improve performance. Sure it's hard if you miss out but no harder than any other person missing out due to illness/sickness/injury.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with what you write above, yes, if you are unwell and go to see a doctor about you illness then the doctor will prescribe if appropriate the relevant drug you need.

If however you are a sports man or women and, you, as in my example have asthma and you're chosen sport is one which requires a lot of physical exertion that will get you out of breath, then why did you choose that sport? Why did you become professional? knowing in both cases that you will likely suffer because of your underlying illness and have to take drugs to alleviate the symptoms which is tantamount to cheating even if the sports governing body tells you it is legal within the given guidelines.


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 6, 2018)

Not sure if there's been any 'doping'...

But, they [Team Sky] are certainly guilty of peeing all over the rule book...


----------



## IanM (Mar 6, 2018)

Item on TalkSport this morning... a doctor they had on said, 

5% of general population have asthma 

40% of cyclists on Pro Tour have asthma, so take whatever "medicine" they were talking about! 

Didn't do stats at A Level, but I am surprised at the numbers


----------



## Dibby (Mar 6, 2018)

IanM said:



			Item on TalkSport this morning... a doctor they had on said, 

5% of general population have asthma 

40% of cyclists on Pro Tour have asthma, so take whatever "medicine" they were talking about! 

Didn't do stats at A Level, but I am surprised at the numbers
		
Click to expand...

What if they genuinely had asthma, did cycling because they felt excluded from a sport like football and then became good, because of the asthma medication before they reached elite levels?

Comparing a normal population to a sports population you wouldn't expect to have similar profiles, otherwise, you would be shocked to discover basketball players are taller than average, gymnasts are shorter than the average population.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

Getting into different types of asthma.

Exercised induced asthma is what most of the cyclist claim to have, with that condition many dont have asthma any other time but when they exercise hard, they're not going to have an asthma attack when off the bike. 

It does seem that 40% is taking the mickey and often done solely to get small gains in performance, all legal of course......for now.

If EIA is so common maybe it is just the bodies way to telling you to stop, like lactic acid in muscles. A natural repsonse to extreme physical exertions?


----------



## larmen (Mar 6, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			It does seem that 40% is taking the mickey and done solely to get small gains in performance, all legal of course......for now.
		
Click to expand...

Has anyone checked that 40% number and compared it against team GB in 2012 ;-)


----------



## IanM (Mar 6, 2018)

Dibby said:



			Comparing a normal population to a sports population you wouldn't expect to have similar profiles, otherwise, you would be shocked to discover basketball players are taller than average, gymnasts are shorter than the average population.
		
Click to expand...

Well, being tall is a clear differentiator in basketball.  If you were looking to source folk likely to be good cyclists, is having asthma the first criteria you'd look at?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

Do other endurance athletes have similar levels of asthma? It would be interesting to see if one brings about the other or whether cycling is bending the rules to use asthma drugs to help other aspects.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 6, 2018)

I'm surprised by that 40% figure, it was my understanding that 80% of the TdF peloton had it.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

IanM said:



			Well, being tall is a clear differentiator in basketball.  If you were looking to source folk likely to be good cyclists, is having asthma the first criteria you'd look at?
		
Click to expand...

Larger than normal lung capacity and rangy build I think (for distance cycling). Not asthma.


----------



## Dibby (Mar 6, 2018)

IanM said:



			Well, being tall is a clear differentiator in basketball. If you were looking to source folk likely to be good cyclists, is having asthma the first criteria you'd look at?
		
Click to expand...

If true that 40% of elite cyclists have asthma, and there is nothing underhand going on, then clearly it is a good marker. Just because height and basketball are obvious to an outsider, doesn't mean less obvious indicators don't exist. 

An interesting example is ice hockey, you are almost twice as likely to make it to the NHL if your birthday is in January, compared to December. There is a clear logic behind why, but to an outsider at a first glance, it's not an obvious indicator.

Then you get down to more controversial indicators, there is a gene common in East Asian populations that allow them to metabolise certain steroids faster than other ethnicities. If they choose to do so, this would allow them to take more drugs and stop their cycle closer to competition than other athletes. Perhaps having asthma has a similar effect? 

Sadly, in modern sport, ability to do the task may not be the only factor, ability to respond to performance-enhancing substances may be just as important or more so. As a natural athlete Rider A may beat Rider B by 10 seconds, but if Rider B is a better responder to PEDs he may then beat Rider A even though they are both taking the same substances in the same doses.


----------



## larmen (Mar 6, 2018)

And that is why, even if they all take drugs, the playing field is not level.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

Dibby said:



			An interesting example is ice hockey, you are almost twice as likely to make it to the NHL if your birthday is in January, compared to December. There is a clear logic behind why, but to an outsider at a first glance, it's not an obvious indicator.
		
Click to expand...

You can't dangle that one and then not give us the answer. What is the reasoning behind it?


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			You can't dangle that one and then not give us the answer. What is the reasoning behind it?
		
Click to expand...

Think he means the December of the same year (rather than a month earlier) so the January born kids have an 11 month start in physical development and are therefore bigger and stronger on average so will get selected ahead of the younger ones for that same years team, by the time it evens out physically when they're adults its too late to catch up with all the coaching/training missed. 

Just means those born early in the year have a slight advantage to making it in pro hockey.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 6, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			Think he means the December of the same year (rather than a month earlier) so the January born kids have an 11 month start in physical development and are therefore bigger and stronger on average so will get selected ahead of the younger ones for that same years team, by the time it evens out physically when they're adults its too late to catch up with all the coaching/training missed. 

Just means those born early in the year have a slight advantage to making it in pro hockey.
		
Click to expand...

They will be in different school years by that logic wonâ€™t they?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Mar 6, 2018)

I think that there are similar trends in the UK but based on academic years rather than calendar years. Kids born September are more likely to excel, in terms of physical sports, than those born in August, again due to the 11 month gap in terms of development.


----------



## Dibby (Mar 6, 2018)

Exactly, Canadian age group hockey has cut off dates based on the calendar year. So in some cases, a kid is chronologically a year older than some opponents. This is a big physical advantage, and so gets a coach's attention, and now the player has a skill advantage through more coaching as well as a physical advantage, compounding the problem. By the time kids are late teens and equalling out, it's too late.

If you look at NHL stats, just over 10% of the league's players are born in January, but only about 6% in December, with a drop off throughout the year.

It's just one example, but just making a point, obvious variables are not the only ones that make good indicators of athletic potential.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

I understand the issue in junior sport. As someone who played decent level junior level hockey, birthday mid December, qualifying date Jan 1st, I know all too well the physical differences that occur that can prevent you from playing at certain regional levels. By the time you reach adulthood that all evens itself out and stops being relevant though. I'm surprised it still impacts at senior pro level. Interesting stuff.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 6, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			They will be in different school years by that logic wonâ€™t they?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure, for my older kid's football team (Scottish FA affiliated and not school based) it's based on the year of birth, nothing to do with the class you're in at school.


----------



## Dibby (Mar 6, 2018)

The other interesting part of this is that we often see a selection bias.

A good example of this is Weightlifting. During the 80's and 90's, the Bulgarian team were massively successful, and since then everyone has become obsessed with the "Bulgarian System", which basically involves high volume and maxing out every day. People look at it on an individual level and see all the success, they don't look at it from a system level and see how it was a meat grinder for athletes, the weak literally did not survive unscathed, so at the end you are left with only the athletes who survived, and so no doubt they excel.

So whilst this approach is a great system for a nation, it's not good for individual recreational weightlifters to follow, yet they do. That's before you even consider the pharmaceutical support needed to survive the program.

Potentially cycling could have a similar effect, the training to be elite is so gruelling that it induces asthma in most athletes, of which many drops out, but you are still left with an unusual percentage of asthmatics at the end.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 6, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I understand the issue in junior sport. As someone who played decent level junior level hockey, .
		
Click to expand...

What level was that ?? Conference ?, national ?


----------



## Macster (Mar 6, 2018)

If Wiggins is innocent, the easiest way for him to prove it, would be to produce or make available his Medical Records going back to when first 'diagnosed', or indeed go for an examination now.
I understand his Autobiography doesnt mention any 'asthma' at all in his life, which for someone who has 'achieved' so much, you'd think he would have......

I've never liked the guy, always come across as a bit of an arrogant individual, and personally, I feel he's as guilty as hell.
Same with Froome, and very likely half the population of Pro cyclists......its endemic, and as someone who has cycled quite a bit at a Mamil level, the feats of endurance and performance do take some believing I can tell you.

Mo Farah......Tiger Woods.....the list is enormous, all these guys have been linked to some scandal one way or another, where there's money, there's muck, as they say in Yorkshire,.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

RandG said:



			What level was that ?? Conference ?, national ?
		
Click to expand...

Junior level remember. I played county, Cheshire, and regional, North West, at age levels. Cheshire was a strong hockey county back then, may still be now, and we didn't lose many games over the years. I had a spell of 1 maybe 2 years, 15-17, where a birthday 2 weeks later could have meant another step up. Not to be though, ultimately not good enough and as the game changed as I got older, not fit enough. Had a load of fun though &#128513;.

Club wise I had contemporaries who did well at Brooklands, late 80's, early 90's, but I didn't have the transport to get there so I played at my local club in lower leagues. As I'm sure you know teams from the SE dominated hockey back then but Brooklands were a brilliant club in Cheshire, their junior section was spot on and it was a real change of the guard time as they were an up and coming club going past the older traditional clubs. It would have been a great place to be, just at the right time. A bit frustrating but that's life. I've lost touch with hockey now so I don't know which clubs are strong or not any more.

Did you play much yourself? There are a few ex hockey lads on here, Liverpoolphil, and one fella, apologies to him as I can't remember his name, who was a number two keeper at a National division team. They both made it higher up the food chain than I did as an adult.


----------



## drdel (Mar 6, 2018)

While I recognise this is just a load of tosh on a  web forum its a pity IMO how some very famous sports personalities have had their names put in print by brave keyboard warriors with absolutely no factual evidence of illegality.

Kangaroo Court reigns.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 6, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Junior level remember. I played county, Cheshire, and regional, North West, at age levels. Cheshire was a strong hockey county back then, may still be now, and we didn't lose many games over the years. I had a spell of 1 maybe 2 years, 15-17, where a birthday 2 weeks later could have meant another step up. Not to be though, ultimately not good enough and as the game changed as I got older, not fit enough. Had a load of fun though &#62977;.

Club wise I had contemporaries who did well at Brooklands, late 80's, early 90's, but I didn't have the transport to get there so I played at my local club in lower leagues. As I'm sure you know teams from the SE dominated hockey back then but Brooklands were a brilliant club in Cheshire, their junior section was spot on and it was a real change of the guard time as they were an up and coming club going past the older traditional clubs. It would have been a great place to be, just at the right time. A bit frustrating but that's life. I've lost touch with hockey now so I don't know which clubs are strong or not any more.

Did you play much yourself? There are a few ex hockey lads on here, Liverpoolphil, and one fella, apologies to him as I can't remember his name, who was a number two keeper at a National division team. They both made it higher up the food chain than I did as an adult.
		
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you are talking about field hockey ? Of which I know nothing, sorry.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

This piece covers the feelings of quite a few I suspect. I think it covers the general confusion quite well http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43306210


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 6, 2018)

RandG said:



			I'm guessing you are talking about field hockey ? Of which I know nothing, sorry.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Too late to edit and delete, ha ha.


----------



## User 99 (Mar 6, 2018)

I think a lot of folk really don't know what they are commenting on tbh. For me, they did what they did to get the edge, I'm actually ok with that, I'm just slightly at unease with the manner in which they painted themselves as being cleaner than clean. 

I still recall reading Armstrongs book years back and how he came through all the cancer to win the tour again, what an inspiration it was, what a read it was and when he finally admitted to being a drug cheat, I, like many many others, was devastated, to me this scenario is totally and completely different.


----------



## Macster (Mar 7, 2018)

RandG said:



			I think a lot of folk really don't know what they are commenting on tbh. For me, they did what they did to get the edge, I'm actually ok with that, I'm just slightly at unease with the manner in which they painted themselves as being cleaner than clean. 

I still recall reading Armstrongs book years back and how he came through all the cancer to win the tour again, what an inspiration it was, what a read it was and when he finally admitted to being a drug cheat, I, like many many others, was devastated, to me this scenario is totally and completely different.
		
Click to expand...

Armstrong took Drugs to enhance his performance and gain an 'edge' to win.....
Wiggins allegedly took drugs to enhance his performance and gain an 'edge' to win.......

What part looks totally and completely different ?


----------



## User 99 (Mar 7, 2018)

Macster said:



			What part looks totally and completely different ?
		
Click to expand...

Armstrong took banned drugs, simple difference really.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 7, 2018)

If it's within the rules then anything goes.  As mentioned - Nicklaus it was who once said we must learn the rules so that we know when we are able to push their use to the very limit whilst remaining within them - and use them to our advantage.  I think he said it's worth a couple of shots a round - just knowing the rules properly.

_Read the Rules and resolve to play by them at all times.  few golfers who do not earn their living from the game know the Rules of Golf, and often inadvertently cheat.  Sometimes they cheat themselves by not knowing the rules that work to their advantage _

He said the following in the context of a player doing something that he'd be penalised for but claiming that it wasn't deliberate and under the rules it not being deliberate he was not penalised...so thr is honesty and integrity tied into the debate.  But the comment applies in general I think.

_â€œI think there are very, very few people who take advantage of the rules in the game and if somebody does take advantage of the rules of the game, move on and make a lesson of it and I think thatâ€™s the way we should handle it.â€_

And hey - look what we find here 

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/videos/rules/5-ways-to-use-golf-rules-to-your-advantage


----------



## Dan2501 (Mar 7, 2018)

Main difference is Armstrong got caught taking banned drugs. UK Postal just haven't been caught with anything illegal _yet_.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 7, 2018)

Dan2501 said:



			Main difference is Armstrong got caught taking banned drugs. UK Postal just haven't been caught with anything illegal _yet_.
		
Click to expand...

US Postal the team weâ€™re guilty and found out, it wasnâ€™t just Armstrong that was found out. The same was with Festina, and Astana if I remember correctly.


----------



## USER1999 (Mar 7, 2018)

There is an interesting interview with Sir Brad on the bbc sport web site.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 7, 2018)

murphthemog said:



			There is an interesting interview with Sir Brad on the bbc sport web site.
		
Click to expand...

Did he answer why he did not go in front of the Commons Committee? I haven't got time to sit through it at work.


----------



## Dan2501 (Mar 7, 2018)

Bunkermagnet said:



			US Postal the team weâ€™re guilty and found out, it wasnâ€™t just Armstrong that was found out. The same was with Festina, and Astana if I remember correctly.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you read my post correctly


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 7, 2018)

Dan2501 said:



			I don't think you read my post correctly 

Click to expand...

And there was me thinking a typo error....


----------



## drdel (Mar 7, 2018)

Golf is not without inferences of 'performance' supplements -stag horn etc.

If rule breaking has not been proven 'beyond doubt' then the innocent do not deserve to have their names bandied about.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 7, 2018)

Verb to cheat is defined as "Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage".

Nowt to do with breaking rules.

What Team Sky have been doing through use of triamcinolone to supposedly treat medical conditions is not breaking the rules but could be seen as cheating because they have been dosing this medicine at levels higher than required and at opportune times just before races to aid performance so thereby 'acting unfairly in order to gain advanatage' so cheating by definition in the Oxford Dictionary.
I suspect that just about every cycle team 'cheats' in similar ways but technically stays within the rules.

Just pointing out that use of the term cheat is ok to use even if rules haven't been broken.


----------



## drdel (Mar 7, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			Verb to cheat is defined as "Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage".

Nowt to do with breaking rules.

What Team Sky have been doing through use of triamcinolone to supposedly treat medical conditions is not breaking the rules but could be seen as cheating because they have been dosing this medicine at levels higher than required and at opportune times just before races to aid performance so thereby 'acting unfairly in order to gain advanatage' so cheating by definition in the Oxford Dictionary.
I suspect that just about every cycle team 'cheats' in similar ways but technically stays within the rules.

Just pointing out that use of the term cheat is ok to use even if rules haven't been broken.

Click to expand...

Except that 'Cycling' like golf and many activities has chosen create and continuously develop rules to define what is unacceptable. This eliminates the subjectivity that applying the dictionary definition would introduce.


----------



## User62651 (Mar 7, 2018)

drdel said:



			Except that 'Cycling' like golf and many activities has chosen create and continuously develop rules to define what is unacceptable. This eliminates the subjectivity that applying the dictionary definition would introduce.
		
Click to expand...

In matchplay if you deliberately coughed during someone else's putting stroke you wouldn't be breaking any rules but you could be called a cheat.

Think the Oxford Dictionary has it right.


----------



## larmen (Mar 10, 2018)

I think if you really want a golf analogy that a TUE you don't needs like a scratch golfer that is entering tournaments at 18 handicap so he gets a shot every hole.

Or 22, as there are that many stages in the tour.


----------

