BBC Sports Editor Dan Roan has posted footage to Twitter of Sir Bradley Wiggins refusing to answer questions outside his home in Lancashire this morning about the mystery package containing medicine for him that was delivered to Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphine.
The package was in the headlines this morning after UK Anti-doping chief executive Nicole Sapstead told the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is investigating doping, that the agency was still unable to verify what was in the package. British Cycling last night admitted “serious failings” in its record keeping.
> UKAD boss quizzed by MPs about WIggins and Sky
On a separate issue, she also said that Team Sky had ordered more of the banned drug triamcinolone, which was administered to Wiggins under a therapeutic use exemption (TUE), than was necessary to treat one person.
Sir Bradley Wiggins refusing to answer questions about his mystery medical package this morning. VIDEO pic.twitter.com/fO1gkH18ft
— Dan Roan (@danroan) March 2, 2017
At the start of the clip, the journalist asks, “Sir Bradley, can we just find out … ” but is interrupted by Wiggins, coming out of his gate, who says: “Not to my house, it’s a private road, I’ll call the police.”
As a man and woman – possibly neighbours, although that is unclear – try to block the camera, Wiggins is asked, as he walks away: “Sir Bradley, we just wanted to find out a bit about the mystery package, whether you knew about it or not?”
While some people commenting on Roan’s Twitter post this morning have said the BBC was guilty of invading Wiggins’ privacy, others say that the continued silence does not reflect well on the five-time Olympic champion and 2012 Tour de France winner.
‘Doorstepping’, the name given to the press waiting outside someone’s home to obtain their views on a story about them, is a practice that often comes under criticism for not respecting people’s privacy – although in many cases, it is only used when it has proved impossible to obtain a response through other channels.
@alexlynnracing @danroan nothing. The surprising thing is that these questions are needing to be asked…
— Jake Humphrey (@mrjakehumphrey) March 2, 2017
Shortly before Christmas, after Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford claimed to the select committee that the package contained the decongestant Fluimucil, Wiggins was in an apparently more light-hearted mood as he posted a Braveheart-themed image to Instagram.
54 thoughts on “Sir Bradley Wiggins filmed outside his home refusing to talk about mystery package this morning”
Raid his wheelie bins!
Raid his wheelie bins!
Don’t think I would be
Don’t think I would be ansewring questions at my front gate about my work.
road.cc wrote:
What’s Tiwitter (sic)?
Ti’Witter
Ti’Witter
It’s a social media site from Yorkshire.
SingleSpeed wrote:
Works best on Yorkshire mobile network EEeeee.
I’d expect this of The Sun
I’d expect this of The Sun/Mirror/Mail, but it’s pathetic of the BBC. What did they expect given the circumstances, a full and frank interview?
PaulBox wrote:
Yep. Not a fan of Wiggins but this is despicable, lazy ‘journalism’.
PaulBox wrote:
Especially as he did the Andrew Marr interview on the BBC.
PaulBox wrote:
When all else fails, why not? This has been going on for months damaging his own reputation and British Cycling’s. Yet he’s never uttered a word. PR disaster of the highest order.
HalfWheeler wrote:
Because it’s a really shit thing to do. Just because people are a bit suspicious of some things that have gone on, doesn’t mean that the press can fcuk with their lives. Or do you think it’s also ok for them to hack voicemail etc. to find out the truth…?
Plus there’s a major enquiry ongoing, he probably can’t speak up even if he wanted too.
He’d have had a boot up his
He’d have had a boot up his arse if he turned up at my house with a camera out of the blue like that.
Nathan79 wrote:
Why, have you been doping too?
SingleSpeed wrote:
You are neither funny nor clever. Its obviously sensationalist journalism and regardless of whether he has a case to answer its not right turning up at his home like that.
Nathan79 wrote:
Nathan79 wrote:
oh come on – it was a bit funny
Nathan79 wrote:
Yeah because he needs even more bad press.
Would. Not. Mess. With.
Them hacks got balls of steel going up against this.
unconstituted wrote:
This? WTF?
Filming yourself trespassing?
Filming yourself trespassing?
Get that headline edited! I
Get that headline edited! I was expecting a story about a parcel left on his doorstep…
I don’t have much time for
I don’t have much time for Wiggins, but the BBC should be concentrating it’s resources on doorstepping the likes of David Cameron, Tony Blair and the raft of avaricious incompetents that are busy rolling back society to Victorian workfare.
I don’t really give a f*** what drugs (or not) some eejit entertainer takes.
Brave BBC.
Ush wrote:
The BBC only investigates what the government allow them too. Don’t count on the government ever being made to actually right any wrongs. It’s the same the world over.
Are people really surprised
Are people really surprised that anyone doorstepped about an ongoing investigation refused to talk about it?
The BBC have gone down in my estimation.
Speaking as a member of the
Speaking as a member of the highly regarded press…
What’s going on in that video is illegal and shouldn’t even be considered as evidence. You cannot doorstep on a private road, If we (national media) did that there would be minutes before a lawyer was in our inbox with breach of IPSO conduct and potential damages. Dan Roan/BBC would have hired a freelancer without Beeb connection to go get that video knowing it was in breach and knowing the reaction he would get (he has worked with Wiggo news for a long time now) to add fuel to his fire. It’s a foul tactic and I don’t respect that at all, if the police happened to get there in time these freelancers could be rolled in the back of a van .
Wiggo doesn’t like people sitting just off his road let alone outside his front door. He hates press.
road.cc, I think you should know better than to not mention anything substantial regarding breach of privacy and the fact that this footage is taken illegally. There’s a reason this isn’t running on BBC TV now and is mobile phone footage taken of the back of a camera and I think you should change your copy to reflect that.
midnight_marauder wrote:
Are you sure? Speaking as a journalist who isn’t anonymous, I’m pretty sure you can walk down a public right of way and knock on a door even if you ARE carrying a camera. As for breach of privacy, I mean, come on! It’s not like they pushed the camera through his letterbox, is it?
JoshOwenMorris wrote:
I work on the picture desk, I know I can’t send a photographer on a private road like I would a public one. You can doorstep a public road all day until you’re asked to leave, even then you don’t have to (sorry, people) but you can be done for harrasment and its a very fine line. However on a private road like Wiggo’s you cannot sit on it, it’s trespass and if, like the freelancer you aren’t leaving and have to be made to leave (lets not pretend the journo got no warning before Wiggo came out shouting) it can be considered aggrivated trespass which is a civil offense. Not to mention in complete breach of IPSO conduct which the Beeb wave around ceremoniously at anyone else walking the line. I’m not on Sky’s side in this but it’s important to keep some morality in the pursuit of justice (or just a sweet headline)
midnight_marauder wrote:
You can access private land with an “implied right of access”, this is how a postman is allowed to drop a letter off at your door even if it involves entering private land.
Accessing private land to knock at the door of a private dwelling for the purpose of talking to an indivdual believed to be there would be covered under this provision.
This implied right off access is a defence against tresspass, should the landowner inform he person accessing the area that they do not have right of access they must leave.
JoshOwenMorris wrote:
He lives on a private road. I’m no laywer but I wouldn’t have thought that is classed as a public right of way.
Either way Roan/BBC or whoever is out of order.
ibr17xvii wrote:
Er of course it can be a Public Right of Way.
midnight_marauder wrote:
Actually having a quick look at the Ordnace Survey there appears to be a footpath that goes straight through the land, and the road is public, Albeit marked as a dead end.
Aren’t the press meant to fact check before putting fake stuff on websites 🙂
SingleSpeed wrote:
Whatever the Ordnance Survey says, I know for a fact the road there in its present time is a private road. I know I’m just a man on the internet saying the Ordnance Survey is wrong, but the Ordnance Survey is wrong, I have first hand experience, its a private road. I stand by what I’ve said.
midnight_marauder wrote:
Three posts, all on this thread. Bradley – is that you?
midnight_marauder]
What does first hand experience of a private road feel like? I imagine it must be nice… were there vol-au-vents?
midnight_marauder wrote:
It is perfectly normal to have a public right of way across private land, or along a private road. People can harp on about “private roads” all they like, if a right of way exists on the council’s definitive map, no matter who is responsible for the highway, then it’s a public right of way. And if that’s the case, then nobody, MoP, police, The Queen, can stop people using it. Ever. Public rights of way, once established, can only be extinguished by legal process. They do not ever expire.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
It is perfectly normal to have a public right of way across private land, or along a private road. People can harp on about “private roads” all they like, if a right of way exists on the council’s definitive map, no matter who is responsible for the highway, then it’s a public right of way. And if that’s the case, then nobody, MoP, police, The Queen, can stop people using it. Ever. Public rights of way, once established, can only be extinguished by legal process. They do not ever expire.— midnight_marauder
There are however limits to what you can do on a public right of way on private land.
The principle is that you may have right of way, you may carry resonable provisions such as a pram or a dog on a lead, you may stop to admire the view or to have a picnic.
Other than that the land owner is within their rights to ask you to move on.
The police can stop you using it if you are creating a breach of the peace.
massive4x4 wrote:
not really any longer … DPP v Jones and Another – House of Lords there again I’m a rights of way officer what would I know about such things
midnight_marauder wrote:
Er the information on Ordnance Survey maps is based on data from the defintive Rights of Way maps held at the local council. If it’s marked on the relevant OS map as a Public Right of Way then it is a Public Right of Way.
[/quote]Whatever the Ordnance
[/quote]Whatever the Ordnance Survey says, I know for a fact the road there in its present time is a private road. I know I’m just a man on the internet saying the Ordnance Survey is wrong, but the Ordnance Survey is wrong, I have first hand experience, its a private road. I stand by what I’ve said. [/quote]
Totally and utterly wrong. A Private Road does not usurp a Public Right of Way. The Ordinance Survey is CORRECT. Get your facts straight mate.
midnight_marauder wrote:
It may be a private road but I’ve just checked on the OS map and it’s a public right of way that pedestrians have every right to use. Wiggins cannot prevent people walking down there, ever.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
It may be a private road but I’ve just checked on the OS map and it’s a public right of way that pedestrians have every right to use. Wiggins cannot prevent people walking down there, ever.
— midnight_marauder
I wouldn’t argue with an angry drugged up dude.
I bet Wiggins wished he lived
I bet Wiggins wished he lived in Texas right now.
Until I saw this video, I was
Until I saw this video, I was giving Sky the benefit of the doubt. Now however, I have no doubt, no doubt at all that Wiggins and Sky are doping like Armstrong…
If he wasn’t hiding the most sophisticated doping programme ever seen in sport, why wouldn’t he give an open and comprehensive interview when asked? The journos even came to his house to save him the trouble of having to travel anywhere.
Wiggins, I am ashamed to be british right now.
Road.cc journo should have
Road.cc journo should have written a title along the lines “Beeb illegally trespass to get an interview with Wiggins”. That would reflect the important issue highlighted by this video.
Probably didn’t because doesn’t want to rock the boat with other journos and jeopardise possible future work interests with the Beeb. So better to join up with some illegal doorstepping scum than tell the truth Great choice.
izza wrote:
Tresspassing is not illiegal.
Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir Philip
Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir Philip Green now Sir Bradley Wiggins. They should be more careful about who they award knighthoods to.
drosco wrote:
…..and stop handing out OBEs, MBEs & KBEs to anyone that’s ever competed in a sport.
Check ordnance survey. It is
Check ordnance survey. It is a public right of way.
Wow, Shooting Stars is OLD.
Wow, Shooting Stars is OLD. Makes me feel OLD.
Anyhoo, doorstepping people is childish journalism. People aren’t compelled to answer your questions, and chasing them is just designed to make people look shifty. Not classy BBC.
Just for the sake of argument
Just for the sake of argument, what if someone had been a bit of a norty boy? Let’s imagine said norty boy had had a bit of a fling and picked up a nasty little infection which he was rather keen to ensure was treated on the hush-hush, not least because he didn’t want his significant other to find out.
Not suggesting that’s anything to do with this ongoing sorry saga, but…
If it were something like that, would we be entitled to ask/know about it? Doctor/patient confidentiality and all that, eh?
Can’t really think of any other plausible scenarios for the bizarre secrecy around this whole affair.
oooh, Wiggins boffed Emma
oooh, Wiggins boffed Emma Parker Bowles
So were the contents of the
So were the contents of the package basically what Sky say the contents were, or recorded them as being? Could it have been anything in reality or is there a definite origin point for ‘the package’ that can be verified?
I’ve lost track of this all now.
It’s clear he was expecting
It’s clear he was expecting this engaging the services of what appear to be two night club bouncers in sky blue polo shirts. You’d have therefore thought he would have come out ranting better dressed in clothing to reflect the values of his outfitter sponsors and he’d have probably been wiser if he spent his money hiring a pr spokesperson to lie in wait and fob off said journos of with a prepared statement rather than try to force the cameras down the throat of the camera man in what looks like an outtake from a consumer affairs rogue trader tv show……
Is private road rash more
Is private road rash more posh than public road rash?
MandaiMetric wrote:
Needs more discreet medication, I believe.