Sir Bradley Wiggins has hit back angrily at a report published yesterday that suggested he may have broken anti-doping rules, saying “I’d have more rights if I’d murdered someone.”
The Combatting Doping in Sport report, compiled by the House of Commons Digital, Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee after an 18-month inquiry, was highly critical of Wiggins and Team Sky, with whom he raced from 2010 to 2014.
Among allegations contained in the report was one from a former senior employee of Team Sky, speaking anonymously, who claimed that the corticosteroid triamcinolone was used by Wiggins and other members of the team at training camps not on medical grounds but to improve their performance.
One of the effects of the drug is that it enables the user to quickly shed weight without losing muscle power, thereby improving their power-to-weight ratio.
The committee also said that it had doubt, in the absence of reliable evidence, that the infamous Jiffy Bag delivered to former team doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné did not contain the legal decongestant Fluimucil, as team principal Sir Dave Brailsford had told MPs in December 2016, but triamcinolone.
The drug is banned during competition, so if it had been in the package, that would have constituted an anti-doping rule violation, and the committee’s verdict on Team Sky and Wiggins was that even if no rules had been broken, they had crossed an “ethical line.”
It’s an allegation that Wiggins strongly rejected in an interview with BBC Sport’s Dan Roan yesterday.
“Not at any time in my career did we cross the ethical line,” he insisted.
“I refute that 100 per cent. This is malicious. This is someone trying to smear me. I would love to know who it is, I think it would answer a lot of questions.
“These allegations, it’s the worst thing to be accused of,” he continued.
“It’s also the hardest thing to prove you haven’t done. We’re not dealing in a legal system. I’d have had more rights if I’d murdered someone.”
The 37-year-old has previously spoken of the impact of news stories casting doubt on whether he was riding clean on his family, including his children facing taunts from schoolmates, and returned to that theme yesterday.
He said: “I’m trying to be in retirement and do other things in my life and the effect it’s had, the widespread effect on the family, it’s horrific.
“I don’t know how I’m going to pick the pieces up with the kids and stuff, as well as try and salvage my reputation from this, I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone.”
The select committee, chaired by the MP Damien Collins, said in its report: “From the evidence presented to the committee it might appear that Bradley Wiggins may have been treated with triamcinolone on up to nine occasions, in and out of competition, during a four-year period. It would be hard to know what possible medical need could have required such a seemingly excessive use of this drug.”
However, Wiggins countered: “I am a rider for Team Sky, the biggest team in the world at that point.
“If you’ve got niggles, problems, a knee injury, common cold, you go to the doctor in the team.
“We are hypochondriacs as athletes, especially coming to the height of the season, the biggest race of the year, whether it is the Olympics Games or the Tour de France.
“So it was completely under medical need and this whole thing has been a complete mess of innuendo and rumour and nothing has been substantiated.”
While the report is based on previously published evidence provided either in writing or in person to the committee, Wiggins said: “These allegations have never been put to me before until now.
“I’ve only found out today what I’m actually being accused of.
“I mean, the whole Jiffy Bag thing was just a shambles,” he added.
Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”
“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”
























63 thoughts on “Wiggins hits back: “I’d have more rights if I’d murdered someone””
Roan asked him, “What was in
Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”
“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”
And that in essence the problem Brad. I want to beleive that you did not knowingly do anything you shouldn’t have and taken anything that was not covered by a TUE but you statement that you do not know what you were given or what you took is hard to beleive.
You are a professional athlete, you have to know everything that you take /goes in to your body, otherwise you run the risk of inadvertantly doping – Alan Baxter at the Winter Olympics anyone?
Not knowing what was in the bag is not a defence that holds any water. You should have asked what you were being given and if you didn’t then is it any wonder people are flinging shit and some of it sticks?
SevenHills wrote:
Dr Richard Freeman was the person who ‘recieved’ the jiffy bag, not Wiggo.
Inside the jiffy bag we’ve been told there was Fluimucil, a decongestant that does not require a prescription and is not a banned substance. The drug is not on the WADA list of prohibited substances.
There’s no ‘evidence’ to suggest that there was anything other than what we’ve been told was in that jiffy bag. The suspicion of doubt over all of this is just that a suspicion. Wiggo is being villified, guilty of something there is no evidence for.
He has however admitted to using corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition. That is what has crossed this ‘ethical line’. If it wasn’t for team sky banging on about how clean they were this wouldn’t be the story it has become. Personally if we were to ‘ignore’ the fact that Sky banged on about their zero tolerance approach to cheating as the hyperbole it clearly is, then we’re left with the topic of ethics. And I’m not clever enough to know where or how you can ‘draw’ a line or rather ‘move’ the already clearly drawn line where cheating and working within the rules actually is.
Wiggo recieved a TUE for corticosteroid triamcinolone to take pre-competition, then, how that decision was made is surely the bigger more relevant question here.
peted76 wrote:
I consider myself a neutral in this (though I’ve got a bit of a problem with BC’s management), but I don’t think Sky’s image can be ignored. To me, it forms the majority of the stick being used to beat them.
One man embodies that. Brailsford told anyone who would listen that they would be whiter than white, no grey, and they would do it through marginal gains.
So he’s either a fool or a knave. He’s either guilty of boasting about controls, management and systems that just didn’t exist, and actually oversaw a pretty chaotic structure in which records didn’t get uploaded and laptops disappeared: hubris.
Or it was the perfect management structure that his picture painted, in which case he’s got a lot of awkward questions that he is lying in response to: cheating.
Neither of these scenarios is good for him. Either of these scenarios gets a beating off the British press once they’ve smelled blood, and politicians follow what the press tell them to.
As far as the intrigue goes, Brailsford could’ve done the honourable thing a while ago and made this less about Wiggins, or Froome. His position has been untenable since this first started trickling out, and it will still be untenable when he finally shuffles off somewhere else, but it will have caused a shit load more damage to Sky and the riders. Brass neck, that guy.
peted76 wrote:
So what was he supposed to do, assuming that he does have asthma – something that can be readily verified from his NHS medical file? Wait for an asthma attack half way up a climb and then call for treatment while the peleton heads over the horizon? Its pretty standard with asthma to give a treatment to prevent attacks rather than allow them to happen and then treat the symptoms. See for example https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/in-depth/asthma-medications/art-20045557
Tony wrote:
If giving corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition to asthma sufferers was the best or only option, then there’d be 190 TUE’s allowed every July. What did the other 189 asthma suffering athletes riding the tdf do that year?
(Actual numbers may vary, sarcasm mode engaged).
peted76 wrote:
Not really, asthma isn’t necessarily about getting out of breath on a big effort. Altitude, pollen count, temperature, exertion, air conditioning, and on and on can all have an impact.
I get the point, maybe everyone could have it as a precaution, on the other hand the so few times it’s actually used could equally be a point for the defence as the prosecution…
peted76 wrote:
Exactly. lets look at it piece by piece.
1. Sky say package was flumicil. – Wiggo said he was on it and its not banned
2. Others suggest it was possibly triamcinolone. Lets say it was. So what? He had an TUE for it. Its not as though he was not allowed, UCI gave approval. So its a moot point really. If he had taken anything else it would show up in a test.
So the package either contained a perfectly legal flu remedy or a controlled substance he was allowed to take under the rules anyway. So what is the problem? Wiggo confirmed he had taken it with a TUE. He couldnt have taken more than the permitted amount as it would show. This is where people are getting into an uproar but have no real argument as regardless of the actual circumstance NO RULES WERE BROKEN!
Smoggysteve wrote:
He didn’t. He had had TUEs for it in the past, but he needed one for each time he was treated, and didn’t have one on this occasion.
SevenHills wrote:
Brad makes it clear in the interview that he never even saw the jiffy bag, so why would he know what was in it?
Seven Hills. Please reread
Seven Hills. Please reread the article.
Brad didn’t say he took what was in the jiffy bag, he said he didn’t know what was in it.
Because it wasn’t delivered to him personally, it was delivered to the medical team.
He knew what he was taking on the day in question however, a fluimucil nebuliser.
And who is this high level source, & since when has it been okay to trash somebodies life on the hearsay “evidence” of an unnamed informer??
As Brad said, if he’d murdered somebody he’d have many more rights & he’d get a fair trial.
SevenHills wrote:
I watched the interview the question was “what was in the jiffy bag” not what was in the jiffy bag and was it used on you. Get the facts exactly right before you comment as it is so easy to turn one answer into another.
SevenHills wrote:
You are mis-interpreting it. He is saying that he never personally received and or knew of the jiffy bag until he was asked about it months later. He isnt the courier or the doctor. He may be the end user but that is not to say he knows what was in a particular package. It could have been anything for anyone quite frankly. Its not as if it was addressed personally to him. This is where people need to read what is being said and not jump to assumptions
Nothing has stuck though has
Nothing has stuck though has it?
“after an 18-month inquiry”
“it might appear that Bradley Wiggins may have been treated”
Truly, awesome work!
alansmurphy wrote:
The ability to prove guilt is as difficult as to prove innocence because the keeping of records has been so poor, or had been on Freeman’s stolen laptop.
It stinks.
A 20 minute listen.
http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Highlights_from_Off_The_Ball/60372/Bradley_Wiggins_Team_Sky__cyclings_ethical_line
I can only suggest the
I can only suggest the Wiggins murders somebody to back up his claims, but puts the murder weapon in jiffy bag.
Or uses a car…
Or uses a car…
alansmurphy wrote:
preferably a Skoda
ah.. looks like I’m not the
ah.. looks like I’m not the only one.
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-statement-the-british-parliament-digital-culture-media-and-sport-dcms-select-committee-report/
Being as Brad has done nowt
Being as Brad has done nowt wrong, to clear his good name he could offer to do a polygraph test. They work on Jeremy Kyle
Could get Jezza to have him on his show.
I agree with him, as a
I agree with him, as a murderer he would have been told what the facts were before sentencing, and have had legal representation and a cup of tea.
In this case, it’s someone’s say so that he took the corticosteroids 9 times, and the committee has accepted that evidence as fact. I thought we’d moved on from drowning witches or burning people at the stake on say so?
Whoever is the source is, shouldn’t be allowed to be anonymous, as who’s to say it’s not a disgruntled former rider with an axe to grind? Might even be Froomey after being told to be a domestique!
Guilty or Not, he’s been treated badly by the committee and the sensationalist headlines.
Oh and the BBC dragging out Tiernan Locke for a quote was a new low.
maviczap wrote:
There has been no denial of that. Just denial that it was wrong/illegal/unethical.
Meanwhile nobody seems
Meanwhile nobody seems bothered by the dosage of the injection given to Mo Farah, specifically to enhance his performance, ahead of a marathon in 2014, as detailed in the report, nor even his own TUE’s.
How about we try and apply the same scrutiny and level of testing to Athletics that we do in Cycling? and don’t get me started on Football LOL!
700c wrote:
Mo Farah is probably as clean as a toilet seat.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
So cleaner then your chopping board.
700c wrote:
Mo’s amino acid injection wasn’t of a banned substance however the way he took it and the poor records kept are the problem. The biggest issue with Mo is he’s associated with Salazar who is linked to doping.
Mo is intelligent and like cylists and rugby players is seen by the UK public – and it seems MPs – that sports people who are intelligent should know everything that is put in their bodies and why. As someone who has participated in two sports over the years – one where clearly some players were/are on steroids at the top teams but not so on the national team – this is very easy to look up using the internet whether a susbtance is banned or not. Even if Mo was stupid, like footballers and the majority of track and field athletes are perceived to be, then if you are told your coach/consultant or whoever is involved in your training is dodgy then you should stop using them immediately to avoid being tainted.
Anyway the Mo Farah doping story is here – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/09/ukad-sir-mo-farah-case-warning-2014-london-marathon-infusion/
Bluebug wrote:
Yes and one of the specific criticisms against Salazar is his methods advocating administration of that same performance enhancing drug by injection, in potentially illegal quantities. So It’s all linked as far as I can see.
Somebody prepared to be injected for performance enhancement, even if it is a legal drug, or to go to extreme lengths such as training for months in hard-to-reach places, working with discredited individuals, sleeping in oxygen tents, not answering the door to testers – all adds shade to the question ‘is an athlete clean?’. I can see how TUE’s also could have the same effect especially when doctors give extreme steroid treatments for common conditions. Without proof you cannot accuse somebody in this way but mud sticks and the MP’s should know that.
So I ask again, why is the media, and indeed politicians, not focussing on other athletes or sports? The more testing you do the more drugs you find so it’s easier to why the man on the street simply thinks it’s cycling’s problem.
The 2012 games is becoming considered as the dirtiest in history, and I’m pretty sure there were more events than cycling. Wake up people.
I’m sure – since Wiggins
I’m sure – since Wiggins signed for every DHL delivery for the team – he must be lying…
Team Sky took one look at WADA’s TUE list then took a wild guess at what Valverde, Nibali et al were taking as TUE’s in the off season and applied the same marginal gains themselves. The only thing truly unethical here is accusing someone of behaving unethically simply because you suspect them of that regardless of the rules. Wiggins was the first Brit to win the TDF clean within the boundaries set by both the UCI and WADA. I don’t care what the British Board for this and that says. In legal and semantic terms they’re wrong.
I’m so tired of cycling being sports whipping boy. This story was announced late Sunday night with Mo Farrah’s illegal TUE also being part of the story. 8 hours later and surprise surprise, Farah was dropped from the BBC news feed and hasn’t appeared since. Meanwhile, 10 years post Puerto, and we are still looking at cortisone micrp dosed football teams with plenty of late season zip and HGH youth rugby players who bare no ressemblance to their fore fathers in terms of speed versus build and no journalist is discussing any of that at all.
I’ve looked at Wada’s latest figures for 2105. Olympic athletes form over half Wada’s testing, yet 2012 was apparently the dirtiest game in the modern era and althought the Jamaican Athletics Association has been busted numerous times we all have to feel that Usain ia a saint? Nahhh. There are plenty of potential stories to be had and Team Sky’s page 7 footnote story just isn’t front page material – however much it please certain MPs and trolls to want to make it so.
WolfieSmith wrote:
this.
WolfieSmith wrote:
**WOW**
I assume you mean 2015 – or are you just really ahead of the game?
WolfieSmith wrote:
You also forgot to look at UKADs league table for positive tests, strange how rugby isn’t being given the same media attention as cycling?
Just look at the steroid formed muscles on some of the players?
Even by UKADs testing data cyclists are amongst the most frequently tested in amatuer sport, yet big bucks tennis only had 12 tests carried out.
@WolfieSmith – exactly this
@WolfieSmith – exactly this and well put. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Since I’m not a UK native,
Since I’m not a UK native, can somebody try and address my rant. Please correct me if wrong. The ordering goes something like this.
1. Russian Olympians get scrutinized/penalised for doping.
2. Russian hackers (something Bears) start hacking WADAs, UKADs etc. and start publishing TUEs of various different sportsment across the world. Let’s not get into whether state was behind the hack or not.
3. Wiggins story lifts off from there.
4. The rest of Sky story – we all know how we got here.
Why is there so much Russophobia in this country? I can understand some of the history and empirial rivalries etc. But other than that?
Evidently, the hacking thing seems to be a “good thing” no? At least it was eye-opening to some people…
Disclaimer: I’m not Russian :).
Ogi wrote:
No Russian’phobia anywhere as I can see. Just a manipulated and enforced 2 year media storm since the bears hack, over the British UCI World Tour team, Team Sky. Followed by a very suspicious, anonymous leak of a AAF for salbutamol to national newspapers.
Obviously we would all like to actually know who’s breaking the rules, but it would appear we’re equally happy with speculation and death by public opinion.
I mean those Frenchies throw piss over Froome anually, they’ve been doing it right for years, right.
As someone says above… where is Sir Mo Farrah in this media storm? He was given an injection of L-carnitine before the 2014 London Marathon which Dr Robin Chakraverty admitted was to ‘help performance’. Lets throw another british sports star under the bus.
Frankly it all stinks, but hell 2014 was our year for sporting stuff (I still drink out of a 2014 Olympics mug), to me it looks highly likely that those in the know probably knew what they were doing and that they were doing so not in the spirit of sport but with the goal of winning using the very edge of the rule book. I would imagine that we’d find this level of ‘gaming’ to be widespread across our sports.
Has doping in sport changed since LA? – Yes, clearly people are doping ‘within the rules’ now.
Ogi wrote:
I guess if you believe the accusations of state-backed hacking, polonium poisoning in a public place(s?) and the downing of a plane-load of Dutch people, one might be surprised that there isn’t more Russophobia.
Ogi wrote:
1. Russian Olympians get scrutinized/penalised for doping.
But this is already way above and beyond what we’re even discussing in terms of Wiggins, Sky or cycling in general. The cold war, propoganda, formation of armies, and on and on were created on drug programmes that made Lance look amateur. This has been happening as long as I can remember; Russia, East Germany and China among the forerunners, probably the US but they tried to add a little subtlety.
2. Russian hackers (something Bears) start hacking WADAs, UKADs etc. and start publishing TUEs of various different sportsment across the world. Let’s not get into whether state was behind the hack or not.
It doesn’t matter who it was really, and in some ways if they’d done a good enough job and all sports were equal, it would have raised some great debates and hopefully change. However, it was largely done to deflect and picked out a few instead of the many.
3. Wiggins story lifts off from there.
4. The rest of Sky story – we all know how we got here.
This is part of the problem though, the same as Froome has a problem due to due process not being followed. The leaks mean that people are being asked to prove things in the public eye, guilt is presumed because… well you know… cyclists! Froome massively highlights this when other Pro’s have called for him to withdraw when they should know the rules and must no other people are competing with “adverse findings”.
As for the rest of the Sky story, I’ve mentioned it before but I’m amazed BC get away with this and Sky don’t. Also, though the Freeman thing is a convenient inconvenience, some of the things Sky are being asked to demonstrate they didn’t even have to record or share.
Why is there so much Russophobia in this country?
I really don’t think there is, or certainly not one that we go out looking for as it were – I wanted Drago to smash Rocky 😉 I think there’s times where social engineering ocurrs especially as Britain forged a ‘special relationship’ with the US. There’s the ‘unknown’ side too as the vast country, weather, communism, wages in wheelbarrows and all other kinds of media images were thrown at us; compare and contrast to how we are fed American food, movies and on and on.
Ogi wrote:
Don’t speak ill of TeamGB.
‘The hacking is a good thing’ is whether the ends justify the means, for the greater good. Whistleblowing is pretty similar, whistleblowers should be embraced and protected, but it is not the case.
I’m no lover of Sky or its
I’m no lover of Sky or its sponsors, nor do I think Wiggo is a saint however he does have a point.
The DCMS committee has no proof for its suspicions other than from an anonymous witness whose evidence has not been subject to the same sort of cross examination that Sutton, Brailsford etc were. DCMS has extrapolated 3 known instances of taking a controlled substance backed by TUE to something larger with no substantiation other than a single untested witness.
There is evidence of incompetence in the area of medical record keeping and lax processes which have subsequently bitten Sky on the bum very firmly. Whether Brailsford or others in the organisation ought to consider their futures is a debatable point but these are politicians who operate in the arena of public opinion = fact and Sky would do well to take account of that.
Have Sky done nothing wrong? It seems they have not, were a legal test to be applied. Have they done everything completely right? It seems they have not either, and can’t prove as much. The ususal way forward here in the political world is the rolling of the odd head, apologies all round, promise to do better in future then continue much as before but being a bit more careful.
Quote:
Is this relevant?? Given that triamcinolone is perfectly permitted out of competition, no TUE required.
Is this true and verified?? I know everyone is a triamcinolone expert now – but as far as I know the weight loss was a side effect of triamcinolone due to it reducing muscle mass – although then this subject was kicked around two years ago I seem to remember that there was a lot of conjecture and competing theory’s and little in the way of consensus.
Quote:
Which cheating are we talking about here?
Must be Mad wrote:
I think it was the team regularly eating pasta. A legal but highly unethical attempt to gain a performance advantage within the rules.
I hope he’s innocent like I
I hope he’s innocent like I did with Lance Armstrong… oh wait…
Hence why competitive cycling and British Cycling is going down the pan with a damaged image.
Presenting opinion as a
Presenting opinion as a judgement as the CMS committee of MPs have done is tantamount to a kangaroo court. They know full well the Media and indeed the General Public will view the reports conclusions as solid as a court verdict. Should it be a Star chamber? God help us all if such power is put back in the hands of politicians. They have a justifiable point to make but let us not forget they are not an unbiased, professional court.
In this case, the the CMS committee is decidedly less reliable than a civil court which judges on the balance of probability. In civil cases reputation of the witnesses has a great deal of persuasion when there is no clear evidence of wrong doing. Indeed, no one is suggesting Wiggins has done anything wrong . So on the balance of probability, gentlemen of the jury, did Mr Wiggins take a legally prescribed drug which he knew to have side effects which in some people may reduce weight and improve performance?
Should Wiggins, Brailsford & the rest of the Sky management have known what the side effects were? With hindsight, absolutely they should. Did they know, and are lying about it? That’s anyone’s guess. I try to remain even handed and place store in the past records and reputations of those involved. On that basis I am more than happy to give Wiggins & Brailsford the benefit of the doubt.
In conclusion, the CMSC should have simply outlined the facts and the possible conclusions that may be drawn from those facts. Their recommendations should have been targeted at the system not the people who run it, or who are governed by it. Maybe it wouldn’t have garnered quite so much attention if the likes of Coe, Farah, Wiggins & Brailsford hadn’t figured so prominently in the reports condemnations. I know who I choose to believe and who I wouldn’t trust for a minute.
Olympic and world champion
Olympic and world champion over a period of about 15 years – not one positive drug test, he is 100% clean.
Seems to me there a three key
Seems to me there a three key questions. First does Bradley Wiggins have asthma? If he does then the rules allow him to take the drug. Secondly Dave Brailsford succeeds by attention to detail gaining small increments of improvement from a wide range of techniques. The physical condition of the riders is one such. If he can use drugs legally to improve that then it is legitimate. So the second key question is, ‘Could he be tempted to step over the line?’. Considering his declared wish to be clean I suspect not. Thirdly the only thing that seems odd to me is that, considering how important being clean is, and what a good organiser DB is said to be, why were the crucial records of drug deliveries so poor? Incompetence? A setup by an envious rival?
Spirited people get annoyed by bullying questions and will say unwise things that we should not take too seriously. It is verifiable facts that matter.
If you listen to the full
If you listen to the full interview, he continues “it’s not like someone came to give me a bag and I signed for it. I was doing my job riding and as it was probably delivered to the team” – something along those lines. And that he did have florithingy that day and that might have been what was in it. Shame on sky for not keeping proper records. Just makes them look guilty
I don’t know if I believe him but wouldn’t testing have picked it up if it was a controlled substance only allowed under a TUE?
Quote:
If I’m correct in my understanding of the timeline – the package was delivered in the evening, Brad would have already been through post race testing.
I’m no fan of Sir B, but this
I’m no fan of Sir B, but this character assasination stinks to high heaven. A bunch of politicians, not exactly the most respected occupation on earth, just below double glazing salesmen I understand, villifying someone with no substantive evidence, let alone damning evidence. Basically they couldn’t say that they’d wasted eighteen months doing almost nothing, so they have to invent, embellish and insinuate. Just your typical politicians really.
Every one of that committee should apologise and resign.
How about if BC and Sir B write a report insinuating that the politicians on this committee were taking illegal drugs without any actual proof? I wonder if that would make the front page of the tabloids and item one on BBC news?
David Braislford had the
David Braislford had the nerve to give evidence and did well. He made the point that the relationship between Dr and Bradley is a confidential one and he would not know the details of every medical issue. Bradley and Dr Freeman both decided not to give evidence at their opportunity to give an honest account. No good whingeing after the event when people decide on the evidence in which you have failed to give an account. Why did you both decide not to provide evidence. Shane Sutton did and did well and was fighting your corner. Go on TV and face up to it don’t hide behind sound bites or your reputation will remain tarnished. Bradley I recall you slagging Lord Coe off for no good reason and he could not defend himself ? why ? . Now you know how it feels. Brailsford is a top man .. you have hidden.
Well that’sounds the first
Well that’sounds the first British (australian/belgian ) chicken home to roost! When does the Kenyan one fly in?
Marginal gains? (Funking cheats!)
Feckthehelmet wrote:
Oooh look, a racist Irishman. How novel.
This is being discussed
This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same “damning report” phrase which must be from the press release about this story. I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x
burtthebike wrote:
Looks like a really interesting discussion – i’ll Listen in. Thanks!
Your summation of the programme is weird and paranoid though.
Kadinkski wrote:
Since I haven’t summed up the programme, I’m intrigued as to how my summation can be weird and paranoid? All I did was point out that they were using the same phrase as everyone else “damning report” and apparently accepting guilt when there is no proof. If you think that’s weird and paranoid, maybe you’re weird and paranoid. Or work for the BBC.
burtthebike wrote:
its a really interesting discussion about ‘The Morality of Competition’. You should actually listen to it. You’re paranoid in saying that they are assuming the guilt of Wiggins, well I say paranoid, when in actual fact I mean you are literally 100% wrong. They have hardly even mentioned him.
You need to calm down sweetheart.
Kadinkski wrote:
Since I haven’t summed up the programme, I’m intrigued as to how my summation can be weird and paranoid? All I did was point out that they were using the same phrase as everyone else “damning report” and apparently accepting guilt when there is no proof. If you think that’s weird and paranoid, maybe you’re weird and paranoid. Or work for the BBC.
[/quote]
its a really interesting discussion about ‘The Morality of Competition’. You should actually listen to it. You’re paranoid in saying that they are assuming the guilt of Wiggins, well I say paranoid, when in actual fact I mean you are literally 100% wrong. They have hardly even mentioned him.
You need to calm down sweetheart.
[/quote]
I did listen to it, and they did mention Sir B, but that isn’t the point, which is that they used the phrase “damning report” to publicise the programme when the report contains no proof of rule breaking whatsoever, and by using that phrase, they assign guilt to Sir B. Now that might seem paranoid to you and 100% wrong, but it is a fact.
Which bit of the BBC do you work for darling?
XXX
How very strange that the UCI
How very strange that the UCI should now question the integrity of their own TUE process ? They should defend the fact that an approved TUE is not doping – otherwise what’s the point of the TUE system .. or… they should open up their files of all riders competing on approved TUE’S for public scrutiny. This doesn’t come close to Armstong, Puerto of Festina violations – so let’s get this in proportion. The UCI make the rules – and wherever the line is drawn, let’s not be so naive in thinking that all teams will not be riding right on that line. In the end Bradley and Sky have to be judged against the rules of the sport made by the UCI – and to date there is NO evidence those rules have been broken.
Hang in there Brad, Dave and SKY – the select committee have expressed an opinion only – you have every right to express the opposite opinion.
bottechia wrote:
Except that it’s not the same UCI. As each administration comes in it likes to denigrate what the previous administration has done and claim that it’s going to do it much better.
In fact, in this case, the rules have been tightened up, and there are now a lot less TUEs issued than there were in the times that Wiggins was getting them, suggesting that the opportunities for abuse of the system are reduced.
The optimist in me wants to
The optimist in me wants to belive that this is a rather harsh smear campaign designed to discredit the good name of British Cycling, Team Sky and its exhalted riders, however the realist in me is slowly accepting that optimism is an outdated concept within elite cycling. What worries me is Froome and Wiggins both sound like Lance Armstrong nowadays citing smears and conspiracies galore. Rewind 10 years to some of his interviews and they all provide carbon copy soundbites in their collective defence.
I feel we were all naive to think the Lance Amstrong expose would signify elite cycling’s re-birth. The sad fact remains that super-human performance within endurance sports is clearly dependent on marginal gains and it seems most marginal gains remain either illegal, borderline illegal or in Skys case, unethical.
When the Bradley Wiggins story first broke last year, I remember Chris Froome’s Stoic silence in relation to Sir Bradley and Sir David. I found that strange considering both men had played pivotal roles in Froome’s development. I took Froome’s silence to symbolise a ‘clean athletes’ stance on unethical behaviour within the team and a chance to distance himself from the furore surrounding team Sky.
Fast forward 12-months and now Froome is tripping over himself to support Brailsford, Sky and the team in general. Is that anything to do with Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? who knows. I find the volt face intriguing.
No matter how much cycling tries to repair itself, its image is continually tarnished by individual transgressions of ethics. Has cycling really moved on from the EPO decade dominated by Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, Hamilton and Armstrong? I would argue recent examples from Contador through to Wiggins and Froome still suggest cycling is struggling with its demons. There remains an edemic culture that appears to be systemic in it’s determination to exploit ‘marginal gains’ through ‘unethical grey areas’
Is this cheating or is it pushing the boundaries of ethics permitted by the governing body. I will let you decide. I know this weekend, i’ll be out on my bike, fuelled by a bowl of porridge, a love of cycling and my own integrity and character. I would argue those essential ingredients are what elite cycling needs most at the moment and in the future.
Bez10 wrote:
As long as it’s real porridge – not a pot of ready made stuff; that really would require a TUE in my house.
Bez10 wrote:
Not really. But even if so, a denial is a denial it’s whether you are telling the truth that is important. The news is yet to break of Sir Brad or Chris mocking a reporter about their dead child, I’ll await that story!
So the media have convinced you that Brad and Chriss have done something wrong despite any evidence. Seems to be working!
‘Froomes own personal
‘Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? ‘
quagmire with unethical conduct? He’s failed a drugs test. Sorry, he’s had an ‘adverse analytical finding’.
I don’t think Wiggins has an
I don’t think Wiggins has an ethical case to answer here.
He had a medical condition.
There was a list of approved treatments for that condition.
He took one of the approved treatments.
When you watch Brad being
When you watch Brad being interviewed, looking at him it looks to me that even his hair is lying !