Because it makes perfect sense to fly someone up to Manchester to pick up a 'medicinal package', fly back to London then on to France at £600/day. All for an 8 euro 'decongestant'.
The 'package' was then administered straight away....
And Cope and Shaney-boy held hands and skipped home again. That's Cope, allegedly the BC women's coach, not a Sky errand boy.
This all on record to the PSC.
But wait, wasn't it supposed to be for Emma Pooley again. Oh, no, that was a proven to be a pack of lies...
And you ask why [i]we[/i] don't believe Brailsford. Looks like they've removed gullible from the dictionary (again) 🙄
This would be the charming Cope that dumped Emma O'Reilly when she was talking with him about coming clean about Armstrong.....so much for the zero tolerance policy at Sky again and nice to know Cope's loyalty lies with a doper if push comes to shove.
I don't believe the Secret Pro is a qualified doctor, pharmacologist or research scientist so his description may, perhaps, just be a summary as he and his peers see it.
I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either, but his description just doesn't make any sense. Nobody actually seemed to be able to explain how this wonder drug actually works when the whole TUE debate was going on.
Bloody hell, I expected a bit of a mixed response but I'm actually shocked at the hostility here.
"Out before the ban" is nonsense, there's no prospect of any kind of ban because he hasn't broken any rules - the only real dirt on him is that Kenacort TUE, and as pointed out above the effects of that are open to question.
His retiring (again) doesn't change anything. His reputation will still be slightly tarnished.
I'm actually shocked at the hostility here.
Honest question. Why?
I mean, none of us have ever known what "clean" or pan y agua pro cycling looks like! They've been taking something to artificially improve performance since before my Dad was a bairn.
How many years of being lied to does it take to create a culture of mistrust. Riis, Festinia, Lance...
If there was anything dodgy in the package then it would have shown-up in the numerous drug tests he'd have undertaken during the Tour - or are some suggesting that Sky were one-ahead of the vampires also?
Pitminster - cheating has been going on since racing started. Lifts, drugs, swapping riders, mechanical doping. Cycling has never been clean. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
^^ this is to agree with Piemonster not dis-agree
Never failed a test, hmmm. Sounds familiar.... 😉
I wonder how quick to judge people would be if it was, say an Italian or Spanish rider that was being queried....
There's quite a few high profile caught dopers (Rasmussen, Millar) who have been swearing to the efficacy of kentacort. Course, we can't believe [i]them[/i] dopers though...
Plus, less we forget, the presence of a certain dr Leianders.... Reputed to have been the 'race doctor' at the run up tour races.... I guess he [i]might[/i] know a thing or two about doping, eh?
Now, all this doesn't constitute in itself 'proof' but it sure should at least make you [b]question[/b].
If there was anything dodgy in the package then it would have shown-up in the numerous drug tests he'd have undertaken during the Tour - or are some suggesting that Sky were one-ahead of the vampires also?
You know that Armstrong claimed to be "the most tested athlete in history" don't you?
Unfortunately, the tests can't be relied on to catch dopers. And for balance you can't prove definitively that someone was clean.
we were joking about thius at work the other day (supplying some for a patient and wondered if we should do a stock-check). Folk on (much weaker) steroids for any prolonged period get lots of body fat redistribution (buffalo-hump is a well-known complication), so they're clearly capable of inducing fat mobilisation. I guess if you're riding hard too, maybe that fat gets "lost" in the moving process ? Fat is stored in small amounts in skeletal muscle so I guess maybe losing that is the apparent streamlining of muscle ?I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either, but his description just doesn't make any sense. Nobody actually seemed to be able to explain how this wonder drug actually works when the whole TUE debate was going on.
IANAExercisePhysiologist
The only thing that amazes me is the idea that pro cycling (insert sport of choice) is clean
Perhaps its because "we are good at it" and "we dont do that kind of thing"?
This is a source of comfort for us all
Pro cyclist are not normal people, as such they require abnormal treatment to compete in rediculous events such as the TDF. Therefore in order to compete at the top level in this sport some medical assistance is going to be required (it really would not be possible without a dr). The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field. To this end Wiggins is as "clean" as they come.
Just because team SKY over egged their clean stance for marketing reasons, does not make Wiggins a cheat. Since when has sport been anything to do with ethics? Surely any ethical issues are included in the rules, no?
Any comparison with Lance is ridiculous.
If the same level of scrutiny was given to Quintana, Nibali, Aru, Valverde (FFS), I'm sure similar medical issues would be uncovered. But there seems to be no interest in applying that level of scrutiny elsewhere.
Pro cyclist are not normal people, as such they require abnormal treatment to compete in rediculous events such as the TDF. Therefore in order to compete at the top level in this sport some medical assistance is going to be required (it really would not be possible without a dr). The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field. To this end Wiggins is as "clean" as they come.
Pretty much sums up why pro cycling isn't "clean" and never will be as the audience ultimately wants to see the human physiology pushed to the extreme by any means necessary.
Isn't it about now that someone brings up NSAIDs
Since when has sport been anything to do with ethics? Surely any ethical issues are included in the rules, no?
What? You obviously don't believe in the Olympic 'ideal' then.
Sky played the ethics card right from the get go. No, it doesn't [i]make[/i] Wiggins a cheat, doesn't make him 'clean' either....
I thought it naïve that the MPS couldn't understand why he wouldn't take an OTC medicine. There is absolutely no way that anyone as tested as Wiggins would just source of local OTC product in another country due to problems with cross contamination.
Plenty of sportsmen have failed tests due to unknown added extra components. OTC does not mean not prohibited.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-former-doctor-likens-fluimucil-story-to-the-armstrong-days/
Steffen's central point is that if the drug was needed why did Team Sky request the substance from the UK instead of simply seeking out a local pharmacy. Fluimucil is available over the counter in most European countries but not in the United Kingdom.
As for the package, exactly what evidence is there that it is anything other than what DB says it is?
which "thing" that DB says it is? The thing that was destined for Emma Pooley, that thing? And it couldn't have been destined for Wiggins, because he'd already left, apart from the video footage of him still being there signing autographs outside the team bus? The evidence is that previous explanations DB has offered are demonstrably untrue, so his evidence no longer has any credibility.
I thought it naïve that the MPS couldn't understand why he wouldn't take an OTC medicine. There is absolutely no way that anyone as tested as Wiggins would just source of local OTC product in another country due to problems with cross contamination.
So why wasn't it a Sky employee that rushed a package of prescription drugs (that they can't find the prescription for) across international borders? Why was it a BC employee that had to drive from London to Manchester to collect it and back to London to catch the flight, if it was an emergency then surely you'd give the package to someone in Manchester to deliver? Maybe someone actually in your payroll? I assume when he faced the "packed bags yourself" question that gets asked before every flight Cope was honest and said "yes, but I've absolutely no idea what is in this jiffy bag I've been asked to deliver".
She rightly has an axe to grind but some interesting observations here
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/dec/29/nicole-cooke-team-sky-british-cycling
There's quite a few high profile caught dopers (Rasmussen, Millar) who have been swearing to the efficacy of kentacort
and including
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/jaksche-on-skys-tue-controversy-we-used-the-same-excuse-in-my-era/
The rules exist in order to regulate the level of medical assistance in order to create a level playing field.
I'm sure Wiggins appreciates you using his exact phrase. If you've followed the case and the arguments you might ask whether having an injected corticosteroid is appropriate and proportionate to treat asthma/hay fever (they seem to be used interchangeably in Wiggins' defence). It is usually considered a last-resort treatment where the next step is hospital admission, not riding up mountains for 3 weeks.
From
Dr McGrane points out that the British Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology say injections should only be used as a last resort and even then the side effects may outweigh any benefits. NICE guidelines for rhinitis treatment do not mention intramuscular corticoid therapy at all, instead advocating the use of orally or nasally administered cortisone
More troubling is whether the UCI followed its own rules concerning approval by the TUEC – the three-person committee who are charged with signing off TUE applications. When I contacted the UCI in the wake of the controversy surrounding the approval of an emergency TUE for Chris Froome at the 2014 Tour of Romandie, I was told by a UCI spokesperson that “it was common practice that, for straightforward cases such as asthma, allergic reactions, post-infectious coughs, sinusitis, the UCI’s doctor was making the decision.” That doctor was Mario Zorzoli.
From my last link, says it all really:
"It sort of reminds me of the Lance days, when they would come out with a story that the [b]believers would believe[/b] and everyone else wouldn't think twice about except for a handful of people and they would say, 'hey that really doesn't make sense,'" Steffen said.
I'd been a fan since he was a junior.
We used to ride with him when he was a junior, as we were in the same club. He didn't talk much then.
Thinking about it, I've got a bunch of his old track jerseys and skin suits in a bag in the loft.
Get them on eBay before the bubble bursts! Don't be like Planet X with Savilles old bikes.
Lolz
Im a big Wiggo fan but feel slightly uneasy about the TUE saga. The lack of clarity is disappointing and the fact that only exposed by the Russian's even more so. If nothing to hide, don't hide it especially given Team Sky's zero tolerance approach.
I'm not a qualified doctor or scientist either,
Why would that make any difference?
Which is the same thing with the Jiffy bag medical package, if it was just a decongestant why all the lies and shifting answers? And why would you need to administer it immediately ([i]after[/i] the race is finished....)?
Must be amazing to be able to win when you're in need of urgent medication.... 😉
For me the fundamental issues with believing in Team Sky (and therefore Wiggins) are
1. The history of cycling - we're always promised the clean new era, but it is always yet to arrive. Miracle performances tend to be too good to be true.
2. The multiple lies Brailsford has told thus far in this scandal, plus his attempts to bury the story. Why bother if it's innocuous?
3. Sky's recruiting policy has been fairly checkered - why hire Leinders, the most infamous blood doping doctor in the world, plus several other staff/riders with an obvious history of doping.
4. The fact that the whole team is consistently dominating other world class teams and riders, many of whom are known dopers.
5. The transformation of Froome from rider who got kicked out of the Giro for holding onto a motorbike, to the World's best TTer and climber overnight. Even Sky didn't expect this, as he was denied team leadership until it was too late in the 2011 Vuelta, losing to Cobo by a handful of seconds.
6. Ditto for Wiggins - he transformed from a 4 minute rider who couldn't climb, to a 3 week rider staying with Armstrong, Contador, Schleck etc.
7. Wiggins claiming he didn't suffer any illnesses during 2012 to it emerging he required performance enhancing TUE medication just before a Grand Tour, which is only needed in extreme circumstances.
I'd love to believe in Team Sky, but I just can't see how a clean team would consistently dominate doping teams, especially given what history has taught us.
Here's a few questions:
1. The Daily Mail must have some kind of idea of what was in the parcel, so why don't they come out and say what it is, because at the moment it looks like a glorified fishing expedition that's boiling down into an inquiry into medical record keeping.
2. Why has no-one questioned Simon Hargreaves, the independent ENT consultant who recommended the treatment covered by the Wiggins TUEs. Do you think he was suspect and complicit in 'wrong-doing' and if so, what would his motive be?
3. What dodgy substance would a professional race team have openly carried through customs? I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where something suspect would have been entrusted openly to anyone. It would be a mad thing to do.
4. Why does UKAD leak everything to either the Times or the Daily Mail - you know, supposedly confidential information including the provisional results of their investigation into Team Sky a week or so back as published in the Times and referenced by other outlets. What sort of publicly-funded, ethically-based organisation thinks that's acceptable conduct. Why are they not stopping their own leaks? Desperate for a day in the sun (sic) to boost their own profile and fish for more funding maybe?
5. What does UKAD think was in the package? This all comes from an anonymous tip-off to the UKAD whistle-blowing line. They must think there's something seriously wrong to spend this much time and effort on it. If not it's a waste of public money based on - presumably - an anonymous tip-off or an article in the Mail that they presumably must have taken seriously?
6. How is BC supposed to know what is in the package if it's true - and no-one's denied this, I think - that the UKAD investigators have locked down or seized any relevant documentation and, initially at least, told them not to do so. No, Bob Howden didn't come across well, but why would he make that up when it could be easily disproved by reference to UKAD.
7. The select committee? A cynic would say these are grand-standing MPs who know very little about professional sport, but are keen on keeping their profile high. 'Why did you not get the medication from another team doctor?' for example. One of them is our local MP. He told my partner that it was illegal for cyclists to pass a car on the lefthand under any circumstances. Really.
6. Ditto for Wiggins - he transformed from a 4 minute rider who couldn't climb, to a 3 week rider staying with Armstrong, Contador, Schleck etc.
He did that at Garmin (/Slipstream), not Sky. 2009.
Cycling has always been dirty is a crap argument and the peg that people use to hang their own prejudices on. The world changes all the time, that's how history works. It's a lazy, determinist, naive way of arguing. How about some evidence-based debate that goes beyond just making stuff up?
He did that at Garmin (/Slipstream), not Sky. 2009.
Yes, but we still don't have an explanation for this?
I bet you believed in Armstrong too though BadlyWiredDog? If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to make the same mistakes again. Instead of looking at what Sky's PR department comes out with, look at the facts: They're a supposedly clean team which has tried to lie and cover up it's way out of a supposed non story, whilst having a policy of repeatedly recruiting dirty team staff and riders, whilst transforming the careers, performances and physiques of it's riders and dominating dirty teams at a level consistent with US Postal. In my mind this justifies suspicion.
@joeyd, you listed it as a reason for not believing in Team Sky. Do you not believe in Garmin/Slipstream also?
(Just to be clear on my position, I think the overall TUE thing/mysterious package looks decidedly dodgy, but I don't think Sky are much different to several other teams. They're also suffering from their "cleaner than clean" position not being matched with reality)
I believe in Vaughters - he's seems pretty open, even posting on Cycling News' Forums to defend himself and his team - obviously they've had a scandal or two, Tom D etc, but I believe in their team as much as I do anyone. However they've only won one grand tour (off the top of my head) and they didn't dominate that Giro the way Sky have dominated in their victories. Edit: to clarify - I think the team as a whole is probably clean, but this wouldn't necessarily stop the odd rider from cheating.
Essentially I don't really see how clean riders would be able to beat doping ones over a 3 week grand tour, especially as climbing times haven't really slowed down.
I bet you believed in Armstrong too though BadlyWiredDog? If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to make the same mistakes again.
No, I didn't believe in Lance. I wasn't remotely surprised when he was busted. I am a historian though and I think your take on that is simplistic. But I've already said that once.
I simply believe that there are a lot of similarities between US Postal's and Sky's dominance (if you ignore the PR bullsh*t that both spout, and instead look at the actual evidence) and as such think they should be viewed with suspicion.
The time gap between the two eras is relatively small, with many of the same individuals still involved in the sport (whether as riders or team staff) for the situation as a whole to have changed dramatically IMO.
He did that at Garmin (/Slipstream), not Sky. 2009.
And JV was pretty quick to distance himself from that, saying he (Wiggins) was being coached by BC....
Cycling has always been dirty is a crap argument and the peg that people use to hang their own prejudices on. The world changes all the time, that's how history works. It's a lazy, determinist, naive way of arguing. How about some evidence-based debate that goes beyond just making stuff up?
Not crap really, I've been hearing it's clean cycling at least since the 1999 Tour of Redemption. You remember how that went? Until I see believable displays I'll not believe in them.
And as for making things up, works for Brailsford. Sauce for the goose and all that... 😉
Essentially I don't really see how clean riders would be able to beat doping ones over a 3 week grand tour
Because it's really hard to dope during a tour now? And there's only a handful of guys capable of winning GC, the majority of whom are most-probably clean.
The only GT win that really stands out for me in the last few years is Chris Horner at the Vuelta in 2013.
Because it's really hard to dope during a tour now?
Is it? How so? Wada didn't even know about micro-dosing until Landis spilt his guts. There's versions of EPO that aren't even detectable (some aren't even on the market yet!). The blood passport is way too loose to have that much faith in. And what about all the new stuff that the testers (or us for that matter) don't know about yet? The dopers have all just stopped doing what they've always done?
Do you think Armstrong managed his comeback 3rd place clean?
Don't be bloody obtuse you know it's harder to dope.
Don't be bloody obtuse you know it's harder to dope.
Harder, maybes. But that doesn't mean you can't get away with it cf chakapings Mr Horner for instance.
I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible for the knowledgable and determined. It's been on the go since when, '08? I'd say Lance managed it (wasn't that the way USADA got an in to strike all those SoL tour wins?)
You guys are always wanting proof, prove to me it's too hard 
retired to take up ski jumping!
The issue is that sports science is such a huge area of both research and margin (financial and performance)that it is always one step ahead. I think the knowledge that is available to big teams allows them to dope, Ive always believed they did this using cocktails of TUEs and PEDs at certain times leading up to and through events.
Dont forget that until 2006 taking PEDs in Spain was not illegal - hence tennis, athletes, cyclists and footballers living and 'working' there were hugely successful.
BC/SKY has tremendous resource to ensure absolute marginal gains as proven by TUEs through to mahoosive budgets, anything is possible and in cycling probable. You guys saying the history of the sport argument is allowing our prejudices are really, really naive.
It is not just cycling, it is just that cycling takes it more seriously, more fool them? Imagine the other sports that could be dragged to their knees by WADA given the resource.
Joey Deacon sums it up well
Edit: Since 2006, things have improved, mainly because it got harder with the changes in Spain imho
Wiggins claiming he didn't suffer any illnesses during 2012 to it emerging he required performance enhancing TUE medication just before a Grand Tour, which is only needed in extreme circumstances
This, for me, is the only issue. It's written in his autobiography and having not been denied/countered is IMHO an admission that TUE was used for gain rather than true treatment.
Legal but diminishing
