"It is a fundamental human right that personal medical information be kept confidential," the agency said in a statement. "Nobody would want such information disclosed, let alone for it to be debated publicly.
Says WADA on cyclingnews.com - good job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet...
I also think trying to Linch Wiggo / Team SKY is unfair, and I'm sure most on here will be able to fathom that Old Bradders wasn't the only one trying to level out the playing field, I'm sure there's others that have been doing their own jiggery pokery with the banned substance list, TUE's and team Doctors, UCI doctors and any other Doctor.
The pic above of Ferrari is quite apt and tells anyone and everyone who needs to know that rules or no rules, human nature will instinctively bow out to greed and money.
I'm also in the pissed off camp, quietly admiring Team SKY and what they stood for, I've often found myself in conversation trying to portray the Sport of Cycling being as clean now as it ever has been and whilst it probably is I can't help but think it was all a bit of a scam, No Needles and biodiversity eating trying to stay away from Growth hormones in meats whilst jabbing your Arse cheek with an illegal banned / approved med.
I'd also like to say tough shit, yes it's his job Cycling round France for 3 weeks a year, if you have difficulty breathing find another job, imagine turning up for work as a Fireman and being scared of confined spaces or hights or being Asthmatic, in a respirator, in a tight space whilst another persons life depended on it. Then trying to make it better by stating "well it's all he ever wanted to do" it's his God given right. It's not, if you can't do it by means of being naturally fit and athletic it's your body's way of telling you that you can't do it. It seems fairly straightforward to me but I'm sure there's plenty who think he should take substances to bring him up to a naturally fit individual persons standard.
Maybe we should have the olympics, Paralympics and those with Asthma?
That should level out the playing field, they could have sticky inhalers handed out of the team cars and that way those with breathing difficulties who are life long sufferers of Asthma can all compete in the same races.
Surely that's a lot fairer than injecting corticosteroids into muscle tissue,
AH victim blaming now- their fault someone broke the law etcgood job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet..
[quote=xyeti ]Surely that's a lot fairer than injecting corticosteroids into muscle tissue,Wiggins hasn't had any injections, remember?
In his 2012 book My Time, Wiggins said he had "never had an injection, apart from I've had my vaccinations, and on occasion I've been put on a drip, when I've come down with diarrhoea or something or have been severely dehydrated".
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.
*not at all surprised.
Does anyone know how much of this substance riders were using in 'the bad old days'?
AH victim blaming now- their fault someone broke the law etc
It's possible to note the irony in an organisation which has failed to keep medical records confidential making a statement saying that medical confidentiality is 'a fundamental human right' without it being 'victim blaming'.
Beside, the victims here aren't WADA, they're athletes who haven't done anything wrong who are being smeared by the media for no genuine reason. Like Steve Cummings who had a TUE in 2008 I think, for an inhaler, which is not even on the banned list now.
Ah yes, that's my fault, I forgot he had gone on record and published a book in which he claimed "NO Needles"
I'm glad I didn't buy it........
It's possible to note the irony in an organisation which has failed to keep medical records confidential making a statement saying that medical confidentiality is 'a fundamental human right' without it being 'victim blaming'.
apologies i mistook this as you having a go and blaming them
good job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet..
Clearly WADA are a victim of the hack clearly the athletes are victims of what was hacked
Reputations are being tarnished
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.
Looked like a classic piece of (crisis) corporate comms in play - find a friendly interviewer and present a series of prepared comments (well in this case) in attempt to move the narrative on
Brad was remarkably composed and articulate - almost as if the whole thing had been rehearsed.
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.*not at all surprised.
Does anyone know how much of this substance riders were using in 'the bad old days'?
I imagine they used more effective substances since they didn't have to bother with the TUE rigmarole.
Reputations are being tarnished
WADA's reputation for keeping medical records confidential has certainly been tarnished
So after 8 pages, basically there's no evidence whatsoever that Wiggins' treatment was anything other than 100% by the book, no one has explained how he would get a performance enhancement from triamcinolone, and lots of people are very upset that he lied in his book.
Having seen the storm that's blown up over this, is anyone [i]really[/i] shocked that he didn't reveal his use of TUE injections in his book? I can't say I'm surprised he kept that quiet, because he would still have had to deal with most of this even if he'd been honest!
I've been utterly sceptical about pro cycling ever since my last cycling hero, Robert Millar, tested positive in '91, but this TUE stuff is no smoking gun.
[quote=kcr ]Having seen the storm that's blown up over this, is anyone really shocked that he didn't reveal his use of TUE injections in his book? I can't say I'm surprised he kept that quiet, because he would still have had to deal with most of this even if he'd been honest![img] 
[/img]
KCR, Lance Armstrong was a pretty heavy user, so either he had Asthma as well or he used it to slow him down, quite why he or Millar or Wiggo would inject it knowing full well that it had no benefit to performance is beyond even my rationale, why is it people don't want to believe it's enhanced performance.
And I think we all get it, he's done nothing wrong by the letter of the law but I don't work to the UCI's guidelines like the top Pro teams do, I have to rely on my morale compass to decipher what's right and what's not.
A bit like Google et al not paying Tax, they've done nothing wrong and are earning more for the fat cats who invested and who sit on the board. It's all above board and legit but it sticks in the throat a bit.
Kcr
There is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing and that the drug is a very unusual treatment for asthma usually only given to people in hospital who are very unwell and if Wiggins was so unwell as to need it he shouldn't have been racing
Wouldn't it just save us a lot of time by saying that roadies at the professional level are cheats...
Lets just concentrate on the muddy side of the sport and leave the doping to the lycra lovers....
kcr: best get and touch with the UCI and WADA and get them to remove it from their banned list. It obviously does nothing...
Probably get them to exonerate Lance (again) as well while you're at it.... 😉
Oh and what happened to Sky's we'd pull a rider rather than get them a TUE policy that they started off with, eh?
There is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing
Great, that's what I've been looking for. How does it work?
Probably get them to exonerate Lance (again) as well while you're at it....
That's worth posting again for everyone to enjoy!
As I said before, I'm not suggesting that the drug is not performance enhancing. I'm saying I haven't seen evidence of that, or an explanation of how it would work.
kcr - Member - QuoteThere is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing
Great, that's what I've been looking for. How does it work?
[img] 
[/img]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corticosteroid
I think that one of the problems of this thread is that people have different interpretations of the word 'evidence'.
I think that one of the problems of this thread is that people have different interpretations of the word 'cheating'
A piece on this over at [url= http://inrng.com/2016/09/wiggins-tue-sday/ ]inrng[/url].
His comment re Kenacort...
Kenacort rings alarm bells. This and other cortisone-related medicines have an anti-inflammatory response but they have a performance enhancing effect. It’s been the choice of dopers for decades: Bernard Thevenet said he used it on his way to winning the Tour de France twice in the 1970s, Laurent Fignon admitted to using it in the 1980s, Lance Armstrong should have been banned for using it in the 1990s, the late Philippe Gaumont used it in the 2000s and in UCI’s CIRC report cited its use in this decade. The point here isn’t to name users but to show how far it goes back and for every name cited they were surely hundreds of contemporary Kenacort consumers. So our starting point with this substance has more baggage than the Samsonite factory.
Ok, no one has yet to post a scientific paper detailing the specific performance enhancement benefits of corticosteroid, but given how heavily it's been abused in the past and the decades worth of anecdotal evidence out there, I'm pretty convinced it does more than just put you back on a level playing field.
The problem here is that Wiggins has used something LEGALLY that dopers have said they used to great effect. He's also never mentioned in hundreds of interviews, a book etc that he was sufficiently ill before three separate grand tours (but none before then) that he needed what is quite a serious treatment for pollen allergies. All the evidence from the time indicates he was in the form of his life, winning other stage races despite suffering from terrible allergies that left him at a significant disadvantage to his competitors. For one of the stage races he requested the TUE but only used it before the TdF and in another instance had the TUE signed off before a medical examination.
On balance, given the above, it feels more like he, some doctors and quite possibly his team management abused a pre-existing but not severe condition in order to gain SOMETHING. Whether you agree it's as performance enhancing as those who have used it is besides the point, something smells fishy.
Marginal gainz.
Innit,
pushing the boundaries but NEVER crossing them.
Atlaz, arggghhh
xyeti, reckon you have about the sum of it
No smoking gun? Yes absolutely, Armstrongs doping stems from the Atlanta Olympics, through Seven Up and well into USPS.
Sky is far to dominant IMHO. As is the GB track team. But, Im not saying they are doping, I am just saying that the trail of 'activity' is very similar.
It is laughable to believe Wiggins is so poorly he needs this kicker pre every grand tour, please dont tell me he was at a disadvantage without it otherwise he would have been in the same boat for the Olympics. Or did he have this injection for the Olympics too to ensure he was not at a disadvantage?
Wiggins "Drugs put me on a level playing field"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/27/chris-froome-demands-uci-and-wada-address-abuse-of-tue-system/
Id be down for some of that, could have won loads of races had I known. 🙄
Atlaz and fourbanger have it spot on, but in my opinion the instruction would of come from Brailsford. If he thought it would give even half a percent advantage it would be done. Fits right in with his marginal gains mantra.
My word, strong and admireable words from Froome,
On balance, given the above, it feels more like he, some doctors and quite possibly his team management abused a pre-existing but not severe condition in order to gain SOMETHING. Whether you agree it's as performance enhancing as those who have used it is besides the point, something smells fishy.
Well put.
Wiggo's tarnished now and will stay that way, more for his economy with the truth than for the TUE itself.
That doesn't mean he was definitely working the system, but taken alongside Brailsford's previous comment about going right up to the edge of the rules - it does look suspicious.
So I repeat - did Froome have this in mind when he declared that his 2013 TdF win will "stand the test of time"?
I don't think there can be any doubt that cortisone or equivalents are performance enhancing in the context of recovery and control of inflammation over a longer stage race. The only people who fully understand the motivation for the unusual decision to prescribe injections which can have unwanted side-effects for a relatively trivial condition are Sky's medical team.
Either way it's covered by TUE and is entirely legal. In my mind it certainly puts a taint on Wiggins and Sky, and the UCI/WADA should be reviewing the TUE scheme to remove this drug, or at least change the nature of its allowed use. If Wiggins was sufficiently unwell to merit getting this drug shortly before one of the most demanding races in the calendar, he shouldn't have been on the start line.
the UCI/WADA should be reviewing the TUE scheme to remove this drug, or at least change the nature of its allowed use.
Good luck with that one, both WADA and the UCI seem oddly reluctant to take any responsibility for the process at all. As far as I can see, WADA hasn't actually said very much at all about its own system, let alone defend it.
The 'statement' on cyclingnews.com is actually a verbatim cut and paste job from WADA's FAQs. So much for holier than thou journalists eh.
lots of people are very upset that he lied in his book.
But he's explained that, the book was written by a ghost writer who just made that sort of stuff up and he was too busy to proof read the book to check that what was written was true. 8)
I'd love to hear what Lizzie Armistead has to say about it all, given that Wiggo was all 'holier than thee' at the Olympics.....
I'd love to hear what Lizzie Armistead has to say about it all, given that Wiggo was all 'holier than thee' at the Olympics.....
He probably doesnt recall what it was he said as someone else told him what to say and anyway he was banged out of his head on anti-asthma juice 😆
So how about a system where TUEs are fine but you can't compete for X weeks after one - X might vary by drug.
So how about a system where TUEs are fine but you can't compete for X weeks after one - X might vary by drug.
Yes, that would make sense. You treat someone's medical condition so that they're well enough to compete and then stop them from competing... 🙄
Why not just have a system where impartial medics decide whether the use of an appropriate medication is justifiable taking into account any potential performance boosting properties beyond restoration to a notional normal baseline?
The whole thing revolves around the robustness of the process. If it's not convincing as is, it needs to be tightened up. Isn't that obvious. The alternative is to simply get rid and let athletes stick to non-listed medication only.
The trouble is that most of the people doing the 'judging' here are either armchair enthusiasts convinced that all pro cyclists are pretty much tainted / ex-dopers trying to paint the current situation in the tinted light of their own past / journalists who are desperate to create a controversy / Team Sky haters, who would regard anything that team did as evidence that they are evil, depraved, child-eating aliens / trolls.
Somewhere in the middle of all this, there's the kernel of something that does need to be addressed, but trying to argue that TUEs, even ones that seem dubious, are even close to the excesses of the Armstrong era is just disproportionate and stops the real issues being looked at.
The most depressing thing of all is watching cycling determinedly trying to eat itself and make itself as unattractive a sport as possible to sponsors, supporters, the general public, the media and anyone else who looks in from the outside at the whole sorry business.
BadlyWiredDog, you say up above that "The whole thing revolves around the robustness of the process"
Can't we just get back to the robustness of the athletes involved, that way we wouldn't need to treat those that are feeling under the weather and at a disadvantage? Or is it just me that thinks if your career is Cardio Vascular sports and you have a breathing disorder? Then choose something a bit less vigorous or compete at a lower level.
BWD - I think I'm thinking about the difference between chronic conditions where athletes can not compete at the highest level unless they are receiving potentially performance enhancing drugs, and an acute condition where a PED is given briefly to sort a problem. In neither case am I thinking about non-PEDs like inhalers for asthma.
In the former case they are not the best in the world without the PED - whether someone makes comments about returning to a level playing field or not - so I see no problem with saying you can not compete while you are on these substances.
In the latter, they are simply recovering from a condition with the assistance of some drug which they will not need once they recover. Again no problem with preventing competition while they are on the drug.
What's wrong with that?
The trouble is that most of the people doing the 'judging' here are either armchair enthusiasts convinced that all pro cyclists are pretty much tainted / ex-dopers trying to paint the current situation in the tinted light of their own past / journalists who are desperate to create a controversy / Team Sky haters, who would regard anything that team did as evidence that they are evil, depraved, child-eating aliens / trolls.
sadly this sums up this entire thread. 🙁
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off, and why they're releasing this data of people following the rules.
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off
Wiggo and his lack of ethics?
BWD - I think I'm thinking about the difference between chronic conditions where athletes can not compete at the highest level unless they are receiving potentially performance enhancing drugs, and an acute condition where a PED is given briefly to sort a problem. In neither case am I thinking about non-PEDs like inhalers for asthma.In the former case they are not the best in the world without the PED - whether someone makes comments about returning to a level playing field or not - so I see no problem with saying you can not compete while you are on these substances.
In the latter, they are simply recovering from a condition with the assistance of some drug which they will not need once they recover. Again no problem with preventing competition while they are on the drug.
What's wrong with that?
I would say that if someone has a chronic condition that stops them competing to their full potential and there's a medical solution available that will allow them to do that, but[b] without giving them a further unfair advantage[/b], then allowing them access to that seems reasonable and compassionate.
The TUE system, if it's fit for purpose, should do that. I realise it's a fine line, but that's why you have an approval process by qualified medical experts. That should mean that athletes who apply both have a genuine medical need and that the treatment requested won't enhance their performance and is appropriate to that need.
If the process works properly it should do that. If it doesn't do that, it needs fixing. Either procedurally or by excluding some treatments/drugs altogether.
To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16, which suggests that whatever the situation was in the past, it's somewhat different now.
The situation will be different now. You used to need TUEs for inhalers, but not any more, and WADA says you don't need to bother with all the TUE stuff when you're taking the stuff, you can wait until you get popped on a test and then apply for it retrospectively.
Damn, more journos sensationalising and stirring the pot.
Or maybe just more haterz.
Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the 'hard' questions, isn't it...
Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the 'hard' questions, isn't it...
He's very good at deflecting negative questions, even when relating to issues like Sky mucking up in a race.
But he must realise this one is beyond him and Sky are currently getting all their ducks in a row, so to speak.
My guess is Wiggo did have asthma or allergies and they spotted an opportunity for a co-incidental marginal gain, maybe not even thinking they were being unethical. And that they're now frantically drawing up new policies.
He is very good at deflecting the questions, he's good at looking forward, moving on when in actual fact you want questions answered to something that's already happened not what's going to happen.
Anyway, i'll just leave this here.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/07/news/frustrating-end-for-vaughters_1265
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off, and why they're releasing this data of people [s]following[/s] gaming the rules.
😉
Calum Skinner
Still following the rules - if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn't get the advantage they wanted that way.
I want to prove to people my asthma is real
Apparently it is a very simple test that can be done, and is used in hospitals a lot.
They give you something to inhale which if you have Asthma will make your airways restrict, so it should be simple enough to test all pro cyclists
Still following the rules - if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn't get the advantage they wanted that way.
If you dope legally then its not cheating? Even if you lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn't cheating?
What is it then?
lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn't cheating?
So regarding Wiggins where's your proof he's lied or exaggerated about his condition ? Thing is you don't have any do you. For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.
I am an fairly ethical person. But if my whole life/career was based around winning cycle races I would be doing what I could within the rules to give me the best chances possible.
If you have a problem with the system then change the system so the rather grey area of ethics is no longer part of it.
So regarding Wiggins where's your proof he's lied or exaggerated about his condition ?
It was a rhetorical question. Seems you boys don't care if it wasn't done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we're all cleanz now...
Here's another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?
in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here's a clue on this one: USADA posted the reasoned document.
Thing is you don't have any <proof> do you
Couple of weeks ago we didn't know he had 'dodgy' TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next 😀
For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.
Because I don't believe them, I've covered this before. I have no other rational explanation for them coming from nowhere to winning 4 out of the last 5 TdF's. I don't believe the marginal gains bollocks, it pretty much always ends up being the same old same old...
Here's another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here's a clue on this on: USADA posted the reasoned document.
So you're saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn't tested positive yet? 😕
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/now-we-understand-why-team-sky-never-joined-says-mpcc-doctor/
To be fair, neither did a few other top teams. For anyone wanting more on MPCC these articles are worth a read in this order...
http://inrng.com/2013/02/the-mpcc-explained/
http://inrng.com/2015/02/in-praise-of-the-mpcc/
http://inrng.com/2016/02/mpcc-exodus/
http://inrng.com/2015/06/abolish-the-mpcc/
So you're saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn't tested positive yet?
No, I'm saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, its a ****-ing duck!
Couple of weeks ago we didn't know he had 'dodgy' TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next 😀
But there's nothing dodgy about it, all legal and completely within the rules. Maybe something else more damming will come up, I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!
No, I'm saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, its a ****-ing duck!
So just the successful ones then, not the slower guys? So Quinatna, Nibali, Contador? Are they doping do you think? Or just the Brits.
The ones that make sudden and unexplained improvements, [i]them[/i].
I don't really care what nationality they are.
Its the obvious ones and Froome especially to me looks obvious.
I also think Sagan's on the sauce. But at least he's entertaining (on a bike)... 
I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!
<rhetorical question>If a doper was exposed, would you not be happy of that fact? </rhetorical question>
Me, personally, I'm gleeful if dopers are exposed.
This thread is no place for a reasonable person. Or even me.
To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16
UCI website lists 13 TUEs "granted by the UCI" for 2015,
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
but I don't think this is all TUEs.
According to the UCI "If you are included in the UCI RTP (registered testing pool), you must apply for a TUE directly to the UCI through ADAMS exclusively."
The website also points out that approved national anti doping agencies can issue TUEs, and these are automatically recognised by the UCI.
You can see who is in the RTP and the selection criteria here:
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/international-registered-testing-pool-uci-rtp/
The RTP selection criteria for road is professional men and top ranked women, and for track it is "top ranked riders".
The prominent UK road men seem to be in the RTP, but there are a number of Olympic trackies who don't appear there.
So my interpretation of the situation is that 13 elite riders in the RTP applied through the UCI for a TUE, but there is an unknown number of non RTP riders with NADO issued TUEs.
I'm surprised there were only 13 UCI TUEs for the elite testing pool in 2015, even for legitimate treatment. If the system is seriously broken, I would also have expected to see a lot more people taking advantage of it.
Seems you boys don't care if it wasn't done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we're all cleanz now...
I brought up the legality at this point in the thread, and the purpose of doing so was simply to contrast with the actions of the paymasters of those who released the data. I've refrained from giving any judgements on anybody who's medical records have been released by the hackers, and will continue to do so. TBH I don't even like contrasting the two, because they're completely non comparable.
Though I'll simply point out that if it is legal then it isn't doping - in the same way drinking coffee isn't doping.
Thought caffeine was limited
Yeah, Lance used to drink coffee...nudge nudge etc no smoke without fire etc 😉
Is coffee a banned substance?
Is coffee a banned substance?
Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while...
Late '80s iirc.
It's also what Contador and his training chums were drinking when Froome and his mate Ritchie Porte were doing all that extra training (after switching off their power meters of course) above and beyond that carefully crafted Boffin prepared marginal gains training plan from Sky.
I've read some historical posts on this forum regards doping, Meds and mechanical.
There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don't actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there's nothing to prove or to be proved.
It looks like what most of us on here are disagreeing with is the morale high ground, who thinks it's acceptable and who thinks it's unethical. It's not an argument as such but it boils down to what we believe in.
I personally believe if he has asthma he should compete with it or stop racing at that level at least, and there are those who believe he should do everything within the rules to assist him.
It's not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.
There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don't actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there's nothing to prove or to be proved.
The stuff with mechanical was more that we know how it exists and when you put a motor in what sort of power source you need etc. but when we got stuff lile the magic spinning wheel that wasn't etc (The organisers checked the bike) and the idea of motors powerful enough to hide in hubs with no mechanical or electrical signatures people were rightly very sketical.
back to the TUE
It's not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.
Judgement and rules, compete within them, if the rules are bad fix the rules.
The other option is to start letting off smoke bombs and telling everyone that there is no smoke without fire and insisting that there must be something else going on. People bring a colclusion to a discussion a bit too often. Bring facts to the table then work out whats going on.
The one thing about the overarching conspiracy aspect is that how do the people in charge decide who to give the magic juice to?
I think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might 'cheat'. I got drunk with a guy from Trek in 2002 (I recall) in Pau, we argued the night away about Lance, he was infuriated I couldn't believe he was clean. We both ended up with egg on our faces as I was a huge Ullrich/Miller fan.
Edit. My point is that US cycling fans saw Lance as a legend in the making, infallible and brilliant. In fact he was the opposite. Most Brits hold Sky in the same manner.
I simply cannot see how the entire Sky team can sit on the front and pretty much neutralise a 23 stage race. We now know that Wiggins was not up to the task unless the playing field was balanced - his exact words, through medicine, this is fundamentally wrong.
If he is not up to it, he should not be 're-created' to be up to it.
Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while..
As I recall some riders would slip a 'pre-lubed' caffeine suppositry in as they got towards the end of a stage, to give them a boost for the sprint 😯
think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might 'cheat'. I got drunk with a guy from Trek
Got pissed with a sky rider so pissed off with people deciding he was a drug cheat for no other reason than they were winning...
New Wiggins interview in the Guardian;
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues ]Link[/url]
I'm still thinking about the evidence for and against.
To that end, can anyone who has read lots on this point me to somewhere where the confessed dopers mentioned the dose and frequency of their corticosteroids? My googling hasn't found anything, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.
Would be interesting to compare the doses of those who were definitely abusing the drug with someone who claims not to be abusing it.
^^^ Just reading Wiggins's's's interview in the Guardian - he's asking the same question.
That point in the Guardian interview where Wiggins says he 'assumed' Brailsford would have known about the injections .. Seems suprising that may not get discussed beyond the team doctor? Or among managers and riders directly? I would have thought on something like this he could say yes, he did know. Of course he would.
Doesn't sound quite like like the clean* and transparent team Sky that they've presented. Marginal gains like what pillow filling each rider wants or something like that, but no chat about TUEs needing needles before a grand tour. Legal it may be but you can see where the questions come in.
*This isn't illegal I know. It's not great for credibility though and anyone involved could have seen it coming if they'd have looked at what was being used, how, when and seen it from an outsider's POV.
That point in the Guardian interview where Wiggins says he 'assumed' Brailsford would have known about the injections .. Seems suprising that may not get discussed beyond the team doctor? Or among managers and riders directly? I would have thought on something like this he could say yes, he did know. Of course he would.
Not necessarily. Riders aren't privy to management meetings, plus they get shunted around for training camps, races etc, they may not even be in the same country. On top of that, medical confidentiality means that the doctors would technically only be able to discuss medical specifics with the rider's permission. It would be unethical to do that with specific consent.
Ironically you're assuming a lack of medical ethics. It's part of General Medical Council procedure, doctors can be struck off for breaching medical confidentiality.
You wouldn't expect your GP to tell your employer about your medical details without your permission would you?
And somewhere in all this, people forget that they're dealing with human beings, not automatons or robots. That professional cycling teams aren't hyper-efficient, super-coordinated, paragons of bureaucratic efficiency.
People make mistakes. Elite athletes are focussed on major events and don't necessarily register the peripherals. Governments make mistakes. Massive corporations make mistakes. The BBC allowed Jimmy Saville to do what he did mostly unhindered. So maybe it's a little unfair to assume that a cycling team, especially what would have been quite a young cycling team at the time of the Wiggins thing, to be unimpeachably perfect.
I know that's not convenient or consistent with the narrative that everything Team Sky does is meticulously planned and calculated, but that's real life. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold Sky to account and ask fair questions, but I'm not sure you can hold them to unrealistic standards of total systemic perfection or expect their doctors to have breached ethical rules.
I find it hard to believe that, despite all the previous doping scandals, there is no requirement for ALL medicines to be cleared by the team. I'd expect that to be the duty of the rider, not their doctor.