Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Sir Steve Redgrave: MPs should blame anti-doping rules, not Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins

Five-time Olympic champion rower says rules need to be changed to eliminate grey areas

Sir Steve Redgrave says that the House of Commons Select Committee that in a report published last Monday accused Sir Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky of crossing an “ethical line” in their use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) should instead blame the system that governs them.

The report which followed an 18-month investigation by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said that any “grey area” created by current rules which allow athletes to take otherwise banned drugs under a TUE need to be tightened up.

> Damning report from MPs slams Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins

The committee was chaired by the Folkestone & Hythe MP Damian Collins, who appeared alongside five-time Olympic gold medal-winning rower Redgrave on the BBC Radio 5 Live programme Sportsweek today.

Wiggins had used the drug triamacinolone under a TUE ahead of the 2011 and 2012 editions of the Tour de France as well as before the 2013 Giro d’Italia.

The committee concluded, based on a statement from an anonymous Team Sky whistleblower, that he may have used the drug on nine occasions over the course of four years, and that it was being used not purely on medical grounds but also to enhance his performance.

Redgrave, who was among the first to congratulate Wiggins when the cyclist claimed the fifth Olympic title of his career at Rio in 2016, insisted that the committee was wrong to try and hold the rider and his team to account when they were operating within the rules.

"To me, it's black and white,” he said. “It's either a positive drug test and you are cheating or you're not cheating and everything's okay.

Redgrave, who retired after the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, compared it with his own experience – although the World Anti-Doping Code, which governs the use of TUEs, only came into use in its original form ahead of the Athens Games four years later.

"I'm a diabetic, and the last three years of my international career I needed insulin,” Redgrave explained. “Without it I wouldn't have been able to compete.

“You take what you need to and it's down to the rule makers to decide is that a banned drug or not – do you need a TUE to get that?

Referring to Wiggins, he said: "In 2012 when he won the Tour de France then a few weeks later was competing in the Olympics, there didn't seem to be a problem with what he was doing, he passed all the drug tests at that stage."

[Editor’s note: the London 2012 Olympic road race was on the Saturday after the Tour finished and the time trial, won by Wiggins, four days later]

Redgrave said to Collins: "You should be questioning the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA], of UK Anti-Doping [UKAD], and all the agencies and not pinpointing an individual.

"If the system's wrong, we change the system. If this drug shouldn't be used for the treatment that it is and if it has enhancing properties, get it on to the banned list, it's as simple as that.

"People keep saying Team Sky haven't done anything wrong but have stepped over the ethical line but if they've got all the right paper to prove they haven't done anything wrong then the system's wrong.

"If there is this grey area which has been introduced recently over the ethics of it - it's legal or it's not, simple as that – take away the grey area."

Collins insisted that the focus of the committee’s report was on the regime under which Wiggins was able to take the drug.

He said: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules – we are questioning those rules.

"Why don't we tighten the rules to get rid of these ethical grey areas?”

Both Wiggins and Team SKy strongly deny the allegations contained in the report. But after its publication, UCI president David Lappartient called on the independent Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation set up by the governing body to investigate Team Sky and Wiggins.

> UCI boss calls for investigation of allegations against Team Sky and Bradley Wiggins  

"I was interested to hear the president of the UCI saying they may look into it further,” Collins added.

“If any further action is to be taken, it should be taken by people within the sport," he told the programme.”

Both Redgrave and Collins agreed that the way Olympic sports are funded nowadays in the UK, based on medal targets, may also play a role.

"Depending on how you do at the Olympics depends on how much you are likely to get for the next four-year cycle,” Redgrave said.

“So this plays a slight part in it because if you perform badly at the Olympics your funding will get cut, then you will be struggling to stay on the podium and win medals.

"That has to be looked at. Is there too much pressure of paying all those people? All the coaches are professional, all the support staff are professional."

Collins said that the funding model meant that UK Sport was under a duty to ensure that rules – and ethical considerations – were adhered to, including in relation to drugs an athlete can take on medical grounds but which may also enhance performance.

"Let's get rid of the ambiguity,” he said. “But there have to be proper rules in place to check what athletes are taking and why."

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
3 likes

Meanwhile tossers in the IOC including big spongers of the state allowed dopers to take part in the Olympics/Paralympics after mountains (1,666 documents) of clear and unequivocable evidence were presented.

It's a laughing stock, as I've been saying for years, some sports are massively protected because of the money involved, some countries and individual athletes are also protected. The whole Russia doping 'scandal' (lol, because like no-one knew!) is a lovely big diversion, at least for a while.

Seb Coe should have being sacked off and his title stripped for his complicity in all this, absolutely disgusting!

The hypocrisy and absolute blindness to what is happening is incredible.

Avatar
davel replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Seb Coe should have being sacked off and his title stripped for his complicity in all this, absolutely disgusting!

I'm no Seb Coe fan, and it is extremely fishy, but to be fair to him on Russia at least - the IAAF first banned Russia in 2015. It was the other sports federations and the IOC that dragged their feet over a Russia Rio ban - the IAAF took a stand.

And, of course the same committee that has thrown Wiggins and Sky a smelly report with little evidence, also said Coe not knowing about Russia smelled bad... With no evidence.

A cynic might look at the IOC's sports that are Too Big To Fail and not be surprised that there would be cover-ups. And, if you picked the jewel in the Olympics' crown, and by far the biggest star in that sport, and wonder about that individual (rhymes with Hussain Holt) , surrounded by countrymen colleagues who have ALL had adverse drug findings, while he has remained squeaky clean, a cynic might get very cynical indeed.

Avatar
Retfordwilier | 6 years ago
1 like

We all seem to be missing the point here...

A government select committee made up of MPs being paid from the public purse have just spent 18 months and god knows how much money to make a name for themselves as career politicians, irrelevant of who they are throwing under the bus.

 

Agreed, that ethically they crossed a line, but they have done nothing wrong, and any other team would do the same.

Avatar
Kojima | 6 years ago
3 likes

Totally agree with Steve on this one. No rules have been broken, there's no cheating and it shouldn't have been falsely dressed up as a national scandal by attention seeking MPs and journalists. Unfortunately the magnitude of the press coverage also reflects the sad fact that where cycling is concerned, there's a greater public appetite for a juicy scandal than there is for the action on the road.

Avatar
DrJDog | 6 years ago
1 like

They should publish all medical records. Or as much as doesn't interfere with privacy. Creating more grey areas. Perhaps I haven't thought this through.

Avatar
DrJDog | 6 years ago
4 likes

Also, SKY claimed to be whiter than white, and were (partially) publically funded. We can judge them to have failed us morally. Why not?

Avatar
Edgeley | 6 years ago
3 likes

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Avatar
60kg lean keen ... replied to Edgeley | 6 years ago
1 like

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Agree totaly, TUEs need independent Doctors to make sure the Doctor on the team salay is not just bending the rules. This could be the way forward, or maybe you could have Doctors just on TUE duty (payed for by the anti doping) to make the call?

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to Edgeley | 6 years ago
1 like

Edgeley wrote:

....   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

 

As a type 1 diabetic I can confirm this is false - the opposite is more likely to happen in fact.

 

As far as i'm aware it can be used by non diabetics for possible muscle growth? - but at significant risk of the athlete having a hypo (low blood sugar/bonking - potentially quite dangerous) and also developing type one diabetes themselves. That means on average 4 injections a day for the rest of your life plus many daily blood tests and so on and on. Really not worth it. 

 

As a side note I'm deeply offended that people with chronic, incurable conditions need to keep getting TUE's, it's bullshit.

Avatar
tonyleatham replied to Edgeley | 6 years ago
3 likes

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Sigh. Why don't people actually read about this stuff before commenting? A TUE is NOT issued by the team doctor. The team doctor requests one, and the UCI grant it.

 

Avatar
maviczap replied to tonyleatham | 6 years ago
0 likes

tonyleatham wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Sigh. Why don't people actually read about this stuff before commenting? A TUE is NOT issued by the team doctor. The team doctor requests one, and the UCI grant it.

 

Yes, blooming frustrating!

Avatar
SteveAustin | 6 years ago
8 likes

It was good radio. worth a listen. Redgrave was cross, and i think he had a right to be, i think we should all be concerned about the MPs making sweeping judgments about cycling sport, when in reality, they have no idea what happened, why it happened, if anything happened.

The whole case is one of opinion, and it stinks.

Avatar
Reedo | 6 years ago
5 likes

Taking triamcinalone to lose weight with a medical pretext is a rule violation in which the doctor and rider are complicit. It is not a gray area. 

Avatar
Bluebug replied to Reedo | 6 years ago
6 likes

Reedo wrote:

Taking triamcinalone to lose weight with a medical pretext is a rule violation in which the doctor and rider are complicit. It is not a gray area. 

So you know exactly why he took it?

Odd as the rest of us don't which is why it is considered  a grey area.

Also you are aware that your ethical view stance isn't shared by anyone else but there are your own based on your upbringing, social status, culture etc. 

Avatar
Ad Hynkel | 6 years ago
2 likes

How on Earth you can compare any of those to what may have been going on in cycling in recent years with TUEs is beyond me. Get a grip. You have got way too much invested in cycle sport/pro cycling if you think this comes even close to any of that list above.

Avatar
captain_slog | 6 years ago
23 likes

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

But those weren't the headlines, were they? Nobody filled their front page with "Wiggins within the rules", did they? As the DCMS select committee knew full well it would be, the fallout from their report was all insinuation about " grey areas" and the crossing of "ethical lines". Their remit may have been to question the anti-doping rules, but in doing so they've thrown Wiggins to the wolves.

Avatar
SingleSpeed replied to captain_slog | 6 years ago
5 likes

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

 

 

The same can be said for:

 

 

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

 

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to SingleSpeed | 6 years ago
18 likes

SingleSpeed wrote:

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

 

 

The same can be said for:

 

 

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

 

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

you have a very warped sense of prioroties if you think that the Wiggins case is in any way morally equivalent to the examples you listed.

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

 

 

Avatar
Bigfoz replied to ConcordeCX | 6 years ago
4 likes

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

Avatar
Edgeley replied to Bigfoz | 6 years ago
0 likes

Bigfoz wrote:

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

I don't think many independent doctors would contradict a team doctor.  So even if you need a sign off from someone independent, that isn't enough.   The team doctor shouldn't be in any way involved in TUEs.    Honestly, who is going to tell a team doctor that a rider doesn't have asthma, if the team doctor says he does?   Even an independent examination wouldn't be enough, even if practical, for a condition that can come and go.

 

In this particular case, the team doctor apparently couldn't keep records or stop his laptop being stolen, or remember why a bunch of testosterone turned up unordered, which is why there is a smell around the team.  But he shouldn't have been in a position where he was able to prescribe anything to his fellow employees in the first place.

Avatar
Bigfoz replied to Edgeley | 6 years ago
1 like

Edgeley wrote:

Bigfoz wrote:

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

I don't think many independent doctors would contradict a team doctor.  So even if you need a sign off from someone independent, that isn't enough.   The team doctor shouldn't be in any way involved in TUEs.    Honestly, who is going to tell a team doctor that a rider doesn't have asthma, if the team doctor says he does?   Even an independent examination wouldn't be enough, even if practical, for a condition that can come and go.

 

In this particular case, the team doctor apparently couldn't keep records or stop his laptop being stolen, or remember why a bunch of testosterone turned up unordered, which is why there is a smell around the team.  But he shouldn't have been in a position where he was able to prescribe anything to his fellow employees in the first place.

 

If you read the WADA docs linked, you'd see it's not that simple - for example to get a sinusitis TUE, you not only have to prove a documented medical history, but also need either an Endoscopy or Cat scan result to back it up... It's not just a couple of Drs not contradicting each other. I suspect WADA etc have thought this through a lot more than we have and with far more qualified people...

Avatar
srchar replied to SingleSpeed | 6 years ago
11 likes

SingleSpeed wrote:

The same can be said for:

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

In terms of magnitude, not at all.  A man cheating in a bike race pales into insignificance when compared to sexually abusing those in abject poverty or starting an illegal war on fabricated evidence.

Some of your examples actually prove Redgrave's point.  Just as Starbucks, Amazon et al operate within the rules of the tax code and Japanese whaling vessels operate within their "research" quotas, Wiggins and Team Sky operated within the rules of the sporting authorities.  If you've an issue with what they're able to legally do, your issue is with the system and you should direct your complaints towards the people who created it, not those who operate within it.  Ethics don't come into it.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to SingleSpeed | 6 years ago
3 likes

SingleSpeed wrote:

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

This most certainly is similar to the example you cite for McLaren, much closer to that than any other example you bring up.

As Redgrave points out, the rules have been exploited, not broken and that is the problem. We all know that the approach is not within the spirit of the sport, but pushing the envelope is part and parcel of elite sport.

Avatar
peted76 replied to SingleSpeed | 6 years ago
2 likes

SingleSpeed wrote:

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

 

The same can be said for:

 

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

 

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

The point here isn't that any of the people at Sky aren't criminals or terrible people, it's simply the gaming of the system. I say 'simply' in order to play it down, like it should be played down. Because where ethics aren't measureable, rules are and when it boils down to it, it's the rulemakers who decide where to place the actual ethical lines.

You and every other 'outraged person' are possibly thinking we live in Narnia if you think that, in an industry worth $45,000,000,000 any top level team or top level athlete would rather lose, other than play right up to the limit of the rules or try and find ways around them.

I think it's probably too late to think that Brailsford could possibly turn around now and say that they haven't 'gamed the system' when it's clear that they have, but come on people, this isn't 'dirty' it's not 'Lance' it is the same as McLaren blurring the lines with their downforce or Suarez diving to get a penalty, or Federer stopping a losing game to be injured to break the flow of his opponent. Necessity is simply the mother of invention, us humans are wired up to find ways solutions. 

Sky have won by being the very best team they could be within the rules, it is not the same as being the very best they could be outside of the rules, despite the headlines.

I'd imagine that all of these totally legal drugs are at times just used to the max on the basis of looking for the marginal gains not for health benefits, there are an awful lot of athmatics in the pro peloton, we the internet should really just get off our high horses and understand this. 

 

With the whole Froome thing, I think is a great case for what happens when you play to close to the sun... I believe that Chris Froome probably takes salbutomol up to or near the maximum legal dose he's allowed, becuase 1) marginal gains 2) he will be told to do so and 3) becuase it is within the rules to do so. I believe that he probably wouldn't have taken more than he should have and that it probably IS a physiological anomaly due to whatever high pressure situation his body was under. However by taking more than medically reccomended or required then it is simply gaming the system and whilst that is not cheating, it does cross a line, oh actually it really doesn't. So far it's all legal, but then he has a bad day, gets a bit too dehydrated and all of as sudden his piss is sending off alarm bells, he's caught, it's crossed an actual line and he's caught gaming the system, his punishment for that freak situation will be a ban. That does not mean he (or Wiggo) are as bad as Lance Armstrong or the Brazilian cycling team, or Femke Van den Driessche, or the whole of the Russian track and field team. 

 

And gaming the system in sport is something which won't change. Because everyone games the systems in place. Redgrave has sort of nailed it in my opinion.

Let us also not forget here that through all of this controversy, unanswered questions, headlines for the past two years (well it feels that long anyway) is mainly from leaks, anonomus sources, from different angles, it's not whistleblowing (which is a good thing), there is a very strong political undercurrent driving this. 

 

Latest Comments