https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/07/package-bradley-wiggins-doctor-2011-criterium-du-dauphine

Best excuse for a positive drugs test yet?

“Best excuse for a positive drug test”
Except that it happens to be true 😯

How do you know it’s true? Are you him? Were you there,

How do you know it’s true? Are you him? Were you there,

I don’t know statement from girl involved, scientific evidence, acceptance as true from those involved in a thorough investigation. But you keep on believing what you want to believe, it’s obviously what you enjoy.

I don’t enjoy it, I thought you had first hand evidence that’s all, it’s just that I read one thing one day then something slightly different a week later, not in regards to this particular story but excuses in general.

Let’s put out a press statement, bare minimum and see what we can get away with, if we have to cough we can do it next week and hope there’s a natural disaster between now and then to help cover it up.

Wasn’t JTL just drunk? Or a drunk? Don’t think any drugs were involved so a different matter altogether.

Sorry xyeti I haven’t got a clue what your on about, I suspect you don’t either. 😆

Wasn’t JTL just drunk? Or a drunk? Don’t think any drugs were involved so a different matter altogether.

JTL was biological passport irregularities.
He claimed it was the result of some massive drunken spree he embarked on to celebrate being signed by Sky.
The WADA & UKAD biological passport experts disagreed and he got a 2-year ban.

Ah, cheeers, Hic..

D’you think Wiggo might read this thread, eva? If so, “Hi!” 😀 you are awesums…. Please don’t let my faith down….

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ukad-pushing-for-blanket-ban-on-drug-used-by-wiggins/

UKAD been trying to get glucocorticoids banned for the last three years. Why bother if it’s not performance enhancing?

“UKAD has raised concerns in its submissions for the last three years about the potential misuse of glucocorticoids out-of-competition, primarily to assist with weight loss,” read a statement sent to Cyclingnews on Thursday.

Man, they must have been listening to all those damn dopers with a grudge against Sir Brad…

😉 (I should’ve included that on my last post)

Marcel Kittel says

Says a man without asthma 🙄
If he did would he be riding in the paralympics, of course not he’d be taking any legal medication he could, just like all the other asthmatics.

I’ve got to agree with Ze Germans, Of course i’ve not got Asthma so i can say this, I’m not a cheating lying bastard either.

I have many friends who have competed in the last 2 Paralympic Games having lost Arms, Legs, hands and most other body parts. I served for 23 years in the Army. The last thing you would want half way through a fire fight was some one puffing on an inhaler instead of getting the rounds down. Its great that the medication is there to help with respiratory problems but at the end of the day if you need Med’s to level the playing field your not only cheating yourself but you have demolished the playing field by administering what would otherwise be a banned substance.
I dont know if any one else on here went to school in the 70’s and 80’s but at my school if you had asthma you didnt play sport, of course things have moved on now, Only last week my son’s Rugby match was stppped 5 times whilst players walked off the pitch to puff on their inhaler. one lad had his inhaler stood on and it broke. In the end the referee stopped the match as he said he wasn’t confident that the medical staff could cope with multiple attacks. Over the top? i dont know, My Son does’t have Asthma either.

The last thing you would want half way through a fire fight was some one puffing on an inhaler instead of getting the rounds down

Maybe they should get a long lasting injection instead…

Regarding your and Kittel’s desire to send people to the Paralympics, I presume you have never had any medical intervention? Break your leg? Get it amputated and go to the Paralympics. I also note that Pistorious competed at the Olympics with a little help with his medical problems.

I dont’t neccesarily want to banish those who are affected with medical ailments to the Paralympics i just belive that if you cant exhert your respiratory tract to its maximum without the need for medication then it’s kind of unfair to compete in a level playing under Medication.

I know some on here think it’s unfair that those with ailments can’t compete and that we should all be able to do what we want when we want otherwise we are being singled out, victimised or discriminating against, we arent all made the same and unfortunately that seems to not fit in with what the STW ethos believes in.

I;m sure there are those who suffer from epilepsy who could take strong medication, we should get them on a bike and competing at World Tour Level.

I dont’t neccesarily want to banish those who are affected with medical ailments to the Paralympics i just belive that if you cant exhert your respiratory tract to its maximum without the need for medication then it’s kind of unfair to compete in a level playing under Medication.

Sick people? Just leave ’em to die eh… 🙄

NO! Treat the affected sufferers with medication, just don’t sit them on a bike two days after after administering Med’s which everyone “EXCEPT THE STW MUHASSIVE” knows aids performance & recovery, Then preach to the world that team SKY don’t do needles or eat any meat with growth hormones in and digest only the cleanest biodiversity farmed crops. If / when caught, lie, state the author of your autobiography quoted you out of context and claim that because you are competing at a disability, which he basically did because he said himself he was at a disadvantage and trying to compete on a level playing field, so he’s admitted to the fact that he was at a disadvantage but because he has a poorly the team doctor and some other medical people with lots of qualifications but no morale compass and a ponchant for backhanders deemed the whole sad sorry state of affairs legal and above board.

Brailsford when wheeled out was about as convincing as Murdock in the hacking enquiry, I’ve said this before, you believe what you want to and I’ll stick to what I believe in rightly or wrongly.
When they eventually strip him of his TDF wins, his gold medal from 2012 and his knighthood you can post a thread entitled “SBW, My hero, Who Knew”.

If we go back to the OP he asked for people to think.

There’s a good few on here who give every impression that they aren’t capable of even that.

I’ve decided to follow the advice of a charming fellow I was debating with yesterday. Happiness is found in accepting what you are told, not in questioning it. He’s spot on, it’s great to watch cycling success without a hint of doubt in ones mind. A truly happy place.

Whereabouts test missed

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/14/bradley-wiggins-failed-whereabouts-test-rio-olympics

Brailsford when wheeled out was about as convincing as Murdock in the hacking enquiry, I’ve said this before, you believe what you want to and I’ll stick to what I believe in rightly or wrongly.

All I’m saying is that I prefer evidence-based proof to a bunch of oddly angry people on the internet going with their gut feelings and desperately trying to twist everything that the fine, upstanding journalists of the Daily Mail can extract from their Deep Throat at British Cycling to fit a pre-determined narrative.

But then this is post-truth Britain where we’ve had enough of experts… 😉

You can think that makes me naive, I think it’s actually a fair and logical way of looking at things. If you let go of needing proof, what sort of society do you live in?

what sort of society do you live in?

the UK by the sounds of it.

Badlywireddog, I hear what you are saying loud and clear, but if it wasn’t for a few journalsists LA would be still riding the crest of his wave. There’s a good reason why some people do what they do for a living, because they are good at it.

I’m not trying the emulate journalists as being the salt of the earth, BUT throughout the LA affair two journo’s did as much if not more than any one else to uncover the truth and Paul Kimmage gave LA the mother of all come backs on his illness in a press conference.

ll I’m saying is that I prefer evidence-based proof to a bunch of oddly angry people on the internet going with their gut feelings and desperately trying to twist everything

Show me the evidence that cycling has actually changed because the historical evidence shows that cycling has pretty much always been riddled with doping and cheating. I personally can’t see a change. At least now the Sky bullshit is being debunked.

Oddly angry? Who are we talking about, the fanboys whose chips have been pissed on? They’re the ones that seem angry to me. God forbid someone should question their heroes…

I’ll take gut feeling over the koolaid any day 😉

Oddly angry? Who are we talking about, the fanboys whose chips have been pissed on? They’re the ones that seem angry to me. God forbid someone should question their heroes…

Just wondering, do you get any joy from watching cycling at all? What’s in it for you?

Just wondering, do you get any joy from watching cycling at all? What’s in it for you?

These days, not much. I enjoy the climbing, always have. It’s all a bit WWF, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t entertainment…

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2016/oct/14/cycling-history-cortisone-wiggins-lance-armstrong-nobel

That’s a fantastic article, linked above. Thanks, I particularly liked the portrayal of Brailsford.

And as you mentioned above, the evidence of abuse dating back over 100 years. Also the reference to the term Doping and what it refers to.

Armitstead Deignan also having a dig back at Wiggo
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lizzie-deignan-says-uci-needs-to-be-firmer-on-tues/

Setting aside the TUE issue, recent months have revealed Sky to be far more amateurish than they’d like us to think.

Just listened to Dave B interviewed on the cycling podcast and he doesn’t come across well.

Constantly refusing to address specifics, bristling at reasonable questions and waffling like a politician.

Dunno if it’s personal pride or pragmatism stopping him admitting the system may have been played a bit – but it’s not helping anyone.

I thought very much the same thing about Brailsford, poor show in light of what he was trying to achieve, I then spent the next few hours racking my tiny brain trying to think who he reminded me of? Then it dawned on me……. Uncle Ian from Alvin and chipmunks. Any one who has had kids in the past 10 years must have been subjected to singing vermin in the dishwasher.

The problem with Brailsford is that the whole Sky myth has been built around the meticulous attention to detail to achieve the Marginal Gains. When the meticulous detail turns out to be somewhat shambolic then the wheels come off that particular bus… assuming of course it hasn’t left already 😉 The hiring of Leinders & Froome never being VO2max tested or in a wind tunnel were the early flags that this was bullshit.

And then things don’t quite add up… And another explanation is required. Some of us have made our own appraisals.

@xyeti: that NYT Millar article is interesting (although also self serving). At least he’s dropped I only doped twice schtick. Looks like him, Jorgue & the Chicken really don’t like Wiggins (the we only took 20-40mg doses)! You have to wonder why….

Metal heart, i thought it read really well, a bit self serving i agree but he’s done all that before? so not sure if he’s trying to reach out to the none cyclists reading that article or justifying his excuse with everyone else is doing it so why shouldn’t I. His portrayal of the methodology at that time was clear and his as well as others view on kenocort are consistent. Interesting how the T.U.E. loophole is being described as exactly that, By those that have been caught admittedly but if the UCI are reluctant to tackle it then theres no wrong doing to answer to, just a matter of common decency.

I think what Millar is trying to get across is Honesty is the best policy, which again is all well and good once you have been caught, and having been caught and coughed what he’s now looking for is some kind of loyalty amongst thieves. None forthcoming what he’s now looking to do is advocate the benefits of doping, how its done and what its benefits are.

Not only that, I dare say he has probably sold a few more books on the back end of that article. I’m not fond of him either as you have probably guesed but he has painted a very dark picture of the inside of Cycling from his era and then commented on the modern day pro’s. I’d like to think he is nearly right, and getting cleaner all the time.

I certainly looks as though the TUE rule is due an update. I think this paragraph in Millar’s article sums it up:

“A T.U.E. should allow access to a performance-enhancing drug only if that drug is required for proven medical reasons. Then a T.U.E. should permit its use — but only out of competition. If any traces of the drug are found by in-competition testing, then that should result in a ban. For an athlete’s own well-being, it is better to face the fact of sickness or injury and withdraw from competition. And for the sport’s well-being, it is better to avoid a system open to abuse and exploitation”.

So a suitable period should have to elapse between administering a drug and competing. Under the current rules however, it looks as though the letter of the law was followed, even if you think something is morally wrong – and as Millar points out this is widespread in sport. Don’t think for one moment cycling is the only bad boy in this.

Setting aside the TUE issue, recent months have revealed Sky to be far more amateurish than they’d like us to think.

You don’t win 4 TDFs since founding a team in 2009 without being ruthlessly professional and organised. Being professional doesn’t mean you never make mistakes. Sky could be cheating right, left and centre, for all I know, but their results don’t suggest they are amateurish.

That Guardian article just seemed to rehash well known history without actually adding any new facts to the debate, but the final paragraph raises an interesting question:

…the TUE process will continue to be seen in the same light as the old 50% haematocrit level – as a licence to cheat by those who are happy to cross the line.

I don’t think the comparison is very good, because the 50% limit was a (not very effective) response to illegal doping, in the absence of any method of testing for EPO abuse. However, if we run with it anyway, why were there only 13 UCI TUEs for all the registered testing pool riders last year? I think it is commonly agreed that EPO abuse was widespread under the 50% rule. I don’t think pro cycling culture has changed that much, so why are they not all applying for corticosteroid TUEs?