So is Sir Bradley guilty of doping?

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. :rolleyes:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top