So is Sir Bradley guilty of doping?

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
“It was within the rules so he has done nothing wrong”
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???
 
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?
 
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..?
 
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.
 
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.
 
larmen said:
He is known to parliament. So he isn’t anonymous, he is ‘protected’.
Click to expand...
And it’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.
 
Bunkermagnet said:
And it’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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top