A report published today by a parliamentary committee examining doping in sport has given a damning verdict on Team Sky, concluding that it crossed an “ethical line” in using drugs not just for medical need but also to enhance riders’ performance, including ahead of the 2012 Tour de France when Sir Bradley Wiggins became the first Briton to win cycling’s biggest race.
That latter finding has been strongly contested by the British UCI WorldTour outfit, which said in a statement issued this morning that it is “surprised and disappointed” that the committee decided “to present an anonymous and potentially malicious claim in this way, without presenting any evidence or giving us an opportunity to respond,” which it said was “unfair both to the team and to the riders in question.”
In a post to Twitter published shortly after the report’s release at midnight, Wiggins said: “I find it so sad that accusations can be made, where people can be accused of things they have never done which are then regarded as facts. I strongly refute the claim that any drug was used without medical need. I hope to have my say in the next few days and put my side across.”
Entitled Combatting Doping In Sport, the report released by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee follows an inquiry initially set up in August 2015 in response to articles in The Sunday Times regarding allegations of doping in athletics.
The scope widened to include cycling following the publication by the Fancy Bears hacking group of following the Rio 2016 of information relating to the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) by Wiggins and other riders.
Copies of certificates published by the group showed that Wiggins used the corticosteroid triamcinolone ahead of key races including the 2012 Tour de France. It has been claimed he used the drug to treat his asthma.
However, the report published today casts doubt on that assertion. It states: “From the evidence that has been received by the committee, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France.
“The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power-to-weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance-enhancing properties of this drug during the race.
“This does not constitute a violation of the World Anti-Doping Agency code, but it does cross the ethical line that [Sir] David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the Wada rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.”
Key support riders working for Wiggins at the 2012 Tour de France included Chris Froome, who has won four of the five subsequent editions of the race, Michael Rogers, who has since retired, and Richie Porte, now with BMC Racing. Current Team Sky rider Geraint Thomas missed the race since he was preparing to ride the team pursuit at the London Olympics.
The report highlights written evidence from a whistleblower described as “well respected within the cycling community and [who] held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation,” and who stated their belief that “TUEs were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance.”
Regarding the Jiffy Bag delivered to former Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné containing medicine for Wiggins, the committee notes that there was no verifiable source for the assertion that it contained the legal decongestant, fluimucil, noting that “to many people, the whole story of the package seems implausible, to say the least.”
The package, and the use of TUEs, were the subject of an inquiry by UK Anti-doping (UKAD) last year which concluded that in the absence of medical records kept by Team Sky and British Cycling, it was impossible to determine what was inside it.
But today’s report states that “an allegation was made to UKAD, and has been seen by the committee, that says it was triamcinolone,” which if true, would have constituted an anti-doping rule violation.
“We do not believe there is reliable evidence that it was Fluimucil as Dr Freeman will not now confirm it was and, previously, he was the only reported source of this information,” the report continued.
“The mystery surrounding the delivery of the package, and the extraordinary lengths to which Team Sky went to obtain an easily available drug delivered to them, have also fuelled speculation as to what the package might have contained.
“There remains no documented evidence as to what was in the package. If the package contained triamcinolone, which we know Bradley Wiggins, or his team, wanted him to take around 30 May 2011, and it was indeed taken, then the impacts and consequences on all concerned would have been profound.”
The report says: “Responsibility for the continued doubt on this matter rests on British Cycling, Team Sky and the individuals concerned, all of whom have failed to keep simple records.
“Such failure was unprofessional and inexcusable, and that failure is responsible for the damaging cloud of doubt which continues to hang over this matter.”
The report is highly critical of Brailsford. It says he “must take responsibility for these failures, the regime under which Team Sky riders trained and competed and the damaging scepticism about the legitimacy of his team’s performance and accomplishments.”
Since the committee concluded gathering its evidence, Team Sky has been further rocked by the revelation in December that Froome returned an adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol at last year’s Vuelta, which he won. That case is still ongoing.

67 thoughts on “Damning report from MPs slams Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins”
I honestly think it is bad
I honestly think it is bad management over good riding. Dave you need to get into DB 1 and drive off.
So a bunch of politicians
So a bunch of politicians calling other people unethical?
Pot meet Kettle.
JimD666 wrote:
Yeah, I’m really struggling with this concept too.
wellsprop wrote:
Yeah, I’m really struggling with this concept too.
— JimD666
this is a ‘select’ comittee… not just any old bunch of MPs… they have the power to require experts to give evidence under oath…
Paul_C wrote:
You sure about that? What about Irene Rosenfeld of Kraft?
JimD666 wrote:
Jus one name and three words; Keith Vaz, rent boys, cocaine.
JimD666 wrote:
Is that really your take away from this news story? I feel like there are some other elements to look at.
fisao wrote:
Is that really your take away from this news story? I feel like there are some other elements to look at. — JimD666
What I take away from this story is that the politicians are running a distraction story, to distract us from the almighty cockups that they are making. Sad that the media is falling for it. This morning on R4 news, this was the top story. Literally incredible that an athlete not breaking the rules is more important than world events, national events, even more important than the Oscars apparently.
fisao wrote:
Is that really your take away from this news story? I feel like there are some other elements to look at. — JimD666
Totally agree with Jim, the hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking.
dreamlx10 wrote:
‘These people’ being, more specifically, these people:
Damian Collins (Chair) Conservative
Julie Elliott Labour
Paul Farrelly Labour
Simon Hart Conservative
Julian Knight Conservative
Ian C. Lucas Labour
Christian Matheson Labour
Brendan O’Hara Scottish National Party
Rebecca Pow Conservative
Jo Stevens Labour
Giles Watling Conservative
I often have a fairly low opinion of politicians, but it would be good if someone could provide some evidence of precisely how the majority of the particular MPs who penned the report – rather than some politicians, at some times – are guilty of hypocrisy. (Not saying they aren’t, just that the ‘all politicians are corrupt’ thing is a little cheap.)
demondig wrote:
‘These people’ being, more specifically, these people:
Damian Collins (Chair) Conservative
Julie Elliott Labour
Paul Farrelly Labour
Simon Hart Conservative
Julian Knight Conservative
Ian C. Lucas Labour
Christian Matheson Labour
Brendan O’Hara Scottish National Party
Rebecca Pow Conservative
Jo Stevens Labour
Giles Watling Conservative
I often have a fairly low opinion of politicians, but it would be good if someone could provide some evidence of precisely how the majority of the particular MPs who penned the report – rather than some politicians, at some times – are guilty of hypocrisy. (Not saying they aren’t, just that the ‘all politicians are corrupt’ thing is a little cheap.)
[/quote]
It is obvious that these politicians have used their position to publicise this report, a damning report if headlines are to be believed. In the vernacular, damning means illegal behaviour with overwhelming, undeniable proof, which is clearly not the case. The only damning thing about this report must have been when they wrote it “Damn, damn, damn, we can’t prove a thing.”
In this case, I think the accusation of hypocrisy, and quite a few others, is absolutely justified. Why do you think this unproven case, with innuendo, suggestion and rumour, but no proof, is such a huge story? It is clearly distracting from something, and the government’s scandalous u-turn on Leveson is a good candidate, on which the media are strangely silent.
This is yet another case of picking on cyclists because they don’t have the means to fight back.
burtthebike wrote:
The MPs haven’t publicised a report – it’s their own report. Surely it’s no mystery that the predicted dropping of a seven year old inquiry long forgotten about by the public hasn’t been front page news for five days; the seven years wait may be the clue never mind the news appearing when all coverage was about the snow. I don’t think the results of an 18 month old sports investigation five days later was really necessary… Bizarre deductions. As for your last sentence, christ, you seem to have a victim complex.
That’s all before the weird excusing of Wiggins and Sky. Has everyone here invested so much emotionally they can’t see the obvious?
longassballs wrote:
The report was massively pushed, publicised and strings were pulled to get it huge coverage. Why do you think that a report with no substantive accusations would get such incredible publicity? There is no way that this report justified 1% of the publicity it has received, so why was it pushed so incredibly vigorously? While the incredibly good news about cycling gets minimal coverage, if any at all. Lot of coverage on R4 this morning about obesity, and the only solution mentioned was diet; nothing about the most effective method of active travel.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but politicians and the media taking every opportunity to criticise cyclists, creating an atmosphere where all cyclists are seen as law breakers, just before a government inquiry into cycling might not just be coincidental.
burtthebike wrote:
OK, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
fukawitribe wrote:
OK, you’re a conspiracy theorist.— burtthebike
Thanks.
fukawitribe wrote:
OK, you’re a conspiracy theorist.— burtthebike
The problem is more the way the media and Joe Petrolhead link sports people with people just getting from A to B or doing the cycle equivalent of going for a walk on a nice day.
But maybe the general anti-cycling ethos does spill over into coverage of sports stories as well. It’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’ to believe people are influenced by prevailing attitudes.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
OK, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
— fukawitribe The problem is more the way the media and Joe Petrolhead link sports people with people just getting from A to B or doing the cycle equivalent of going for a walk on a nice day. But maybe the general anti-cycling ethos does spill over into coverage of sports stories as well. It’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’ to believe people are influenced by prevailing attitudes.— burtthebike
I agree with your last point – not so much burts apparent idea that this report is actually designed to excuse what’s coming in the report. Or not. Besides the point, just doing what the man asked.
burtthebike wrote:
You think a cross-party committee would spend 18 months working on a report then tip the wink to the government that it’s getting published next week so you can sneak that bit out about dropping Leveson 2?
Yeah that sounds … plausible.
And Team Sky and Tour de France winners do have the means to fight back – one reason the Froome case is ongoing, if it were a domestique with a less wealthy team it would have been done and dusted ages ago.
If you apply for a TUE and
If you apply for a TUE and you don’t actually need the drug you’re applying to take, that isn’t just unethical or ‘pushing the boundaries’.
It’s an anti-doping rule violation.
Skyfall has begun, I can’t wait for the team to collapse and Brailsford and Wiggins to be stripped of their knighthoods. The lies are being exposed.
Since when has ethics come
Since when has ethics come into top sports? I mean really come into it, not just sports people and management paying lip service to it? There are rules, if they’re not broken then it is ‘pushing the boundaries to the limit’.
I suppose politicians sat in judgement is excusable when funding for these sports comes out of the public purse but they do like a good witch hunt, don’t they.
MPs conclude Drugs might be
MPs conclude Drugs might be used in cycling shocker!!
Next week, MPs decide if swimming in the sea will make you wet
What rules were infringed?
What rules were infringed? None.
Team Sky’s lawyers have scrutinised the rule book and informed the team’s managers about what is or isn’t permissible. Dave B is very confident (arrogant) in this position and will not change his stance.
To say that the ethical boundary was crossed is poppycock. You tell me of any sports person who would say ‘I won’t do that, even though it is within the rules, because it is unethical’. More likely than not, all competitors are applying the same search for the slight edge that they can use without infringing the rules. In some instances, this would be praised but in the UK we have our immoral, corrupt MPs saying it is naughty. It beggars beleif.
Velovoyeur wrote:
http://road.cc/content/news/235285-lotto-soudals-tim-wellens-says-cyclists-using-inhalers-are-cheating
Velovoyeur wrote:
TUEs are to be given only when medically necessary. Wiggins was given his as preventative measures. If that’s not violating the letter of the law it certainly violates the spirit of it.
DrJDog wrote:
Glad to see that you’re a doctor, which gives your diagnosis some gravity.
DrJDog wrote:
This.
Oh good, the sun has waded in with its own brand of
Valbronabadly thought out comment. I expect hilarious comments from the local knuckle draggers now…Velovoyeur wrote:
Sky preached that they were going to be whiter than white, no injections, no one who’d been tainted would be employed, etc. etc..
That all turned out to be lies.
Just because it’s MPs saying it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Waiting for Valbronas or
Waiting for Valbronas or BTBSs nuanced view on this . . .
lork wrote:
*Please* don’t rattle those particular cages
lork wrote:
Don’t ever mention my moniker in the same breath as that vile PoS!
UCI still have questions to
UCI still have questions to answer if they approved questionable TUEs, surely? No evidence of Sky breaking rules, it seems it’s the UCI not following the rules to me. All a bit disappointing though, but no news here really.
“well respected within the
“well respected within the cycling community and [who] held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation,”
So who is this person – are we ever going to find out, or are they cloaked in immunity making it impossible to validate or refute the claims made?
and who stated their belief that “TUEs were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance.”
This suggests that TUEs were being used on a regular basis for multiple riders, and given that each one must be requested, evaluated and approved by WADA surely means that this is easy to debunk or prove? Have WADA even been contacted to fact-check this?
Far too much ‘probably’ ‘maybe’ ‘likely’ going on and not enough ‘here’s the proof’ for my liking.
STiG911 wrote:
^^ THIS.
Yet for each ‘maybe’ or ‘likely’, it’s another slice in this death from a thousand cuts scenario which is clearly an orchestrated PR attach to bring down Team Sky and discredit Brailsford.
Has anything new actually
Has anything new actually come out ? becase at first glance it looks just vailed accusations without any evidance from the report last year.
The whole point of sport is that you have a rule book which sets out in black and white what is allowed and what is not. That is your ‘ethical line’ right there.
There are a couple of examples of where is does happen – The MPCC for example have their own code above and beyond the official rules.
It’s an astonishing waste of
It’s an astonishing waste of public money to have an inquiry that finds out nothing we already didn’t know, and which comes to the same unevidences conclusions as the local pub bore.
I can’t help but ssuspect that the committee was ddiverted into this complete waste of time and money to avoid it looking into sexual haarassment in the media industries, or why Leveson 2 has bene cancelled….
exilegareth wrote:
Of course! Leveson 2 distraction. Thank you.
Quote:
Is there a difference between “supporting performance” and enhancing/improving performance? Supporting could mean that they are taking medication so as not to allow performance to degrade due to asthma for example. Which is kind of the point of a TUE right?
smalltalk80 wrote:
I’d look at it as being a bit like the difference between taking ibuprofen for a headache or other condition as opposed to using it so you can block out the pain of those hard interval sessions.
Whether MPs are ‘ethical’ or not in their own matters isn’t really the point here (and I’d like to believe that many of them still have some morals, I hope that we only hear about the ones that have willingly sold their soul or think they’re above the law).
As the article states, the inquiry was set up to look at athletics. With a whistleblower’s account, injected triamcinolone, unexplained testosterone purchases, the fabricated story about Fluimucil, the missing laptop & medical records and more, it’s hardly surprising that this was of interest to the Select Committee. Unfortunately this level of scrutiny still isn’t enough to ensure Richard Freeman and others involved can tell something approximating the truth. And don’t forget that BC, the publicly funded governing body, was involved in the affair. It may not really warrant the big headlines but it’s still disappointing. And what denial Wiggo issues on twitter is simply irrelevant. I guess we should be relieved he didn’t say “I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles”.
Will Fotheringham’s take in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-dcms-report-bradley-wiggins
Wow I’m absolutely stunned at
Wow I’m absolutely stunned at the responses here. Why don’t some of you educate yourself on whats been going on. This isn’t a bunch of corrupt politicians making some stuff up.
Pull your heads out of your backsides.
So no rules broken just some
So no rules broken just some mythical ethical line crossed.I now look forward to the investigation of line crossing being shifted to other sports such as football were injections of pain killers are common place.
Team Sky pretended riders
Team Sky pretended riders were ill so they could use performance enhancing drugs. At least in the old days people just cheated straight up.
A big shame for the Team Lance crew who latched onto Team Sky Flag wavers looking for moral and ethical direction from elite sports. Nevermind lads, there will be another fairytale to believe in along in a minute.
We can file the Sky team after ‘Festina’ and before ‘US Postal’.
Oh well!
Think therest other sports
Think therest other sports that have a bigger doping problem at the moment if you look at the current stats, rugby is one at the top of the list for positive tests. But hardly a mention of that.
Barely a mention about Lord Coes lack of memory, and hardly anything about Mo Farah’s use of an injected supplement.
Don’t think Sky helped themselves in any way by the management and record keeping in their use of these products.
At the end of the day no rules were broken and no positive tests were recorded.
maviczap wrote:
Bit like Lance never getting a positive test eh?
wingmanrob wrote:
Not that old chesnut, you know as well as I do that the test for EPO was flawed during Lance’s reign, and Dr Ferriari had worked out how to avoid testing positive.
Lance did test positive, but he paid his mates off to bury it.
Lance did break the rules, EPO, HGH, Testosterone, and got a lifetime ban justifiably. Sky stretched the rules, but according to the rules didn’t break them, otherwise Wiggo would have been sanctioned.
We may not like it, but that’s the difference between the two cases.
maviczap wrote:
Reminds me of something an old manager once said to me in the retail sales world; you should go up to the line, you can lean over the line, you can have a friend hold your belt whilst you stretch over the line, you can even hold onto a tree branch to get further over the line, just don’t ever step over it. We didn’t work well together and parted company, similarly I couldn’t work for a Sky.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Bit like Lance never getting a positive test eh?
[/quote]
except, of course, he did.
wingmanrob]
Bit like Lance never getting a positive test eh?
[/quote
If you ignore LA’s two positive tests, then yes, a bit like that.
maviczap wrote:
— maviczap“Nothing to see here. No, you need to look over THERE!”
I wondered when the Team Sky PR team would break cover 😉
BTW I’m not saying that there are no issues in other sports. I wish there was as much effort done and attention on those too.
As far as I can see, everyone
As far as I can see, everyone involved in this at any level, has egg on their face regardless of “the truth”, and there is no clean way out for anyone involved:
Seriously – small kids can think up better, more plausible and honest sounding excuses than that.
If I failed to keep records at work where the data is about things far less sensitive (and certainly not worth the ££££ this data is to competitors) I would be fired like a shot for gross misconduct / incapability or whatever. Didn’t hear any of that from Sky?
My Conclusion is: Too much “big business” involved, too much Money at stake, and now, too much time wasted, so it will never be sorted unless someone ‘fesses up, or proves the team to be innocent….and that will never happen now surely – especially as politicians are involved!
We just need to grit our teeth and accept the fact that something either wrong or borderline shady has occurred, we will never know what, some people are innocent and wrongly accused, some are guilty as hell but have got away with it, some have hopefully had their sanctions and we just haven’t heard about it; hopefully all have learned to toe the line and not do it again.
I believe there is no solution, hence it is a pointless waste of everyone’s time and money to pursue it further I think.
The government needs to spend my tax revenue resources pursuing more important matters – raffling the NHS off, or rescuing British trade and industry for example. Sportspersons (generally) need to concentrate on entertaining us – as that is what we (albeit sometimes indirectly) pay them to do.
Can we just ride our bikes now and argue about wearing helmets instead?
Crashboy wrote:
This^^
For a team that publicly and vociferously claimed a zero tolerance on doping, a team that measured, recorded and implemented the tiniest of marginal gains, it smacks of corruption at the highest level for their doctor to conveniently lose his memory, his records and his laptop… and for Brailsford to virtually refuse to co-operate with the inquiry.
No rules have been broken though, so that’s alright then, carry on.
Whatever we think.. the Sun
Whatever we think.. the Sun has made our conclusions for us…
This is the paragraph that
This is the paragraph that interests me:
“134. However, UKAD is not—and should not be—solely dependent on public funding. The sports that use its services also contribute, but they vary widely in their support with some of the smaller sports giving a considerably higher percentage of their income than larger ones. Nicole Sapstead said that sports such as football and rugby (especially the amateur leagues) had major problems with doping.”
If you look on the UKAD website there are more banned rugby players than any other sport by a long way. Also on the website is information on the number of tests done by sport and the most recent report shows that over the last 12 months British Cycling performed 151 tests. CTT did 48, CTT the body overseeing time trials, are there any professionals involved in time trialling? Meanshile the LTA did 12 drug tests in the same period, that’s right tennis with all its millions of pounds did twelve tests.
Meanwhile a bunch of MP’s distracted by Russian hackers and the right wing press decide to investigate cycling. I wonder why? Surely their research should have included looking at the UKAD website to target the sports with the worst record, or where testing is being avoided. They even have the UKAD spokesperson pointing them in the direction they need to go.
Utter waste of time.
I stopped reading anything by Will Fotheringham some time ago, wonder if I can get my money back on the books I bought that he wrote?
I’m sorry but if you’re
I’m sorry but if you’re obtaining a TUE in order to solely obtain performance enhancing products and without the medical condition to require them then that’s doping.
And probably fraud as you’re obtaining something for your benefit & by deception.
This is not “within the rules” at all. Not even close.
I think it’s safe to sat that Sky have now joined the likes of Festina, Telekom, Rabobank, ONCE, USPS and so on.
I must admit that I always thought that motor doping would be the downfall for Sky!
Rapha Nadal wrote:
So you’ve had access to his medical notes?
As for joining the ranks of those EPO fuelled teams, then you really are deluded, and capped it off by suggesting that Sky would be caught using hidden motors.
Even better is your user name, which was one of the tennis stars allegedly involved in Operation Puerto, where every case involving other sports was brushed under the carpet, with the exception of the cyclists.
maviczap wrote:
I’m sorry but if you’re obtaining a TUE in order to solely obtain performance enhancing products and without the medical condition to require them then that’s doping.
And probably fraud as you’re obtaining something for your benefit & by deception.
This is not “within the rules” at all. Not even close.
I think it’s safe to sat that Sky have now joined the likes of Festina, Telekom, Rabobank, ONCE, USPS and so on.
I must admit that I always thought that motor doping would be the downfall for Sky!
— maviczap
So you’ve had access to his medical notes?
As for joining the ranks of those EPO fuelled teams, then you really are deluded, and capped it off by suggesting that Sky would be caught using hidden motors.
Even better is your user name, which was one of the tennis stars allegedly involved in Operation Puerto, where every case involving other sports was brushed under the carpet, with the exception of the cyclists.
— Rapha Nadal
Have you had access to his medical notes? No? Thought as much.
I get it; you’re a Sky fan but if the systematic abuse of TUE’s to improve performance is not doping on a larger than normal scale then it’s you who’s deluded.
I’m aware who Rafa Nadal is, and the connotations attached, but thanks for the history lesson. Not sure that he spells his name as “Rapha” but we’ll let that slide.
It seems that some here are
It seems that some here are under the impression that Wiggins did not have asthma or didn’t require preventative treatment for it. Has the select committee report actually said either of those things?
I thought the questionable part was the choice of drug – something with a performance enhancing effect used when something without might have been adequate.
Still think whoever approved the TUE has questions to answer. IMHO they should at the very least sought an independent medical opinion on whether it was justified.
And to suggest that TUEs should not be preventative – I see no reason why someone with an existing, and potentially dangerous condition should not have a TUE to prevent that condition causing problems. I’m not sure that people making that argument really understand much about asthma.
DaveE128 wrote:
There are TUEs for preventative treatment , and particularly for asthma in the form of sulbutamol. I understand that riders are allowed certain doses and this would appear to be working as I’m not aware of any riders/teams being caught in a scandal where the limits have been pushed to double, in the spirit of the rules. I could be wrong, if anyone knows of riders who have been caught overdoing a preventative TUE…
“Professional sport” – an
“Professional sport” – an oxymoron really. Consider this opinion from a journalist familiar with the history of modern “sport”.
“Performance-enhancing drugs in sport need to be suppressed for three reasons. They can damage an athlete’s physical health, especially important when their bodies are still growing. Once past a certain threshold, they corrupt the whole sport, as happened with professional cycling in the 90s, when no one who did not cheat stood a chance of winning. Perhaps worst of all, they make it seem that the only point of competing is to win. This is a hugely damaging attitude, although it permeates almost all professional and televised sports, where the financial rewards for winners can be quite grotesque. Yet sport has moral or mental benefits as well as physical ones. That’s why the state should encourage mass participation, and most of the people who do that will never be champions. They need to be taught to want to win and how to lose gracefully. Coping with failure while reaching for success ……….”.
Many here are victims of the notion that cycling is, firstly, nothing but a sport and, secondly, something that you “must win at”. In fact, these assumptions are installations of profit-seeking businesses who want their celebrity-hypnotised consumers to, well, consume. They provide you with the circus but you must pay for their bread. And you do, eh?
All the wannabe Wiggos tearing about on their “racing” bikes. Sad.
Cugel
Cugel wrote:
I’m quite happy tearing about on my racing bike. Quite the opposite of sad actually, it makes me very happy.
There’s room for all of us in this tarmaced two wheeled church Brother; bimblers, commuters, MAMILs, even the unethical types like Merckx, Lance and Wiggins.
Grandstanding politicians,
Grandstanding politicians, use of ‘ethical’when you can’t find hard proof , a Burning desire to bring down those who are successful , relying on anonymous sources from disaffected former employees , a disgraceful smear ….nothing new to see here , clean your own stable first before lecturing the rest of us on ethics , pass the sick bag .
I can just imagine the tone
I can just imagine the tone of comments had similar conclusions been reached in an investigation into a Spanish or an Italian team.
But no, we don’t cheat, we’re British.
The parlimentry select
The parlimentry select comitee has stated that BW and Sky didn’t break any rules, but their message implies that BW is a cheat. They can lonly get away with this because they are protected from a civil action for defamation of character. However this then opens the door for the media to plaster headlines that suggest BW is a drugs cheat and get away with it with no risk of legal action.
The whole idea of what is ethical or not is ridiculess. One person’s idea of what is unethical will be different from another’s. What is generally considered as ethical or unethical changes over the years. Sports need to have rules which need to be adhered to. It’s the only workable way. If the rules don’t work they need to be changed so that they do.
This is an issue for the UCI and WADA. If they’re not happy with the rules then they can change them. However if BW hasn’t broken their rules then it’s out of order for a group of MPs to drag his name and reputation through the mud. I was listening to the report on the radio yesterdat morning with my wife who, like the public at large, doesn’t understand the ins and outs of this case, and for her it appeared as if BW is a drug cheat. So that’s how Joe public will see it. Disgraceful really.
iandusud wrote:
Quite right, and if anyone is unethical it is those who smear someone’s reputation without due cause. MPs for instance; glass houses anyone?
Fuckin hell some of you here
Fuckin hell some of you here could get a job with Fox News with all this denial and whataboutery. Go look at Cyclingtips, most commenters there are agreed Wiggins cheated.
“It was all within the rules”
“It was all within the rules” is amusingly reminiscent of the MPs expenses scandal.
But that was about something that actually mattered. At least this is only sport. Maybe it’s a good thing if people get their unethical behaviour out of their system on something that doesn’t have any effect on the real world?
Yawn.
Yawn.
Seems to be missing British
Seems to be missing British Cycling out of the mix – unfortunately they’ve invested in / skimmed off the medal factory so it wouldn’t do right to question that part…