preferred-google-button
log in
register

Are cracks appearing in the Walsh / Sky love affair?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • June 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm #21744
    daddyELVIS

    Walsh has been very quiet since puffer-gate and the subsequent revelations about Froome’s TUE at the TdR – but today, in an article for the Sunday Times, he broke his silence.

    I’ve only seen quotes from the article on the CN website, but the following is quite telling:

    “What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition? Farrell says he was unaware this ethical position existed within the team. Froome says he never heard of it. But Peters has said it did exist at one point and the team are in only their fifth year,” Walsh writes. “As in the case of the appointment of (former Rabobank doctor) Leinders, Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk.”

    Finally, from Walsh’s own mouth – Sky talk the talk, but do not walk the walk!

    I’m sure Walsh hasn’t delved too far below the surface in this article, but it’s a start!

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 61 through 75 (of 88 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm #800529
    0
    Gkam84

    Ok, so have the UCI given two
    Ok, so have the UCI given two different wordings just to put doubt out there. If you see the opening paragraph, it makes out there the UCI are saying that decisions from now on will go through A committee…..meaning there wasn’t one in the first place to go through.

    “The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling’s world governing body, has told Telegraph Sport that it is to introduce an immediate change to its Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) process, ensuring that from now on all decisions pass through a committee.”

    Then they say

    “As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee.”

    Suggesting the have a committee, which if they had one, they would have been using it already for decisions…..they haven’t and they don’t have one

    June 23, 2014 at 10:39 pm #800527
    0
    farrell

    Gkam84 wrote:BOOM….No
    [quote=Gkam84]BOOM….No committee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/International-Cycling-Union-ready-to-make-changes-to-procedure-for-issuing-Therapeutic-Use-Exemptions.html%5B/quote%5D

    Did you read the article, or did you just hope it said what you wanted it to say?

    “As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee.”

    “It is unclear from the statement whether one already exists or whether it will need to be created.”

    It’s not confirmation that they do have one either but I still think that it would be much harder and more mither for the UCI to not have a committee.

    June 23, 2014 at 9:42 pm #800525
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:BOOM….No
    [quote=Gkam84]BOOM….No committee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/International-Cycling-Union-ready-to-make-changes-to-procedure-for-issuing-Therapeutic-Use-Exemptions.html%5B/quote%5D

    BOOM…..maybe. From the article

    “A completely revised set of rules is in preparation and will enter into force on January 1, 2015 in conjunction with the revised 2015 Wada Code and International Standards, including the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE).
    As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee.”

    which is slightly different from the following bit by the author (although the conclusion seems reasonable, i.e. it’s not clear)

    “a spokesperson for the UCI confirmed to Telegraph Sport that all requests would henceforth go through a panel. It is unclear from the statement whether one already exists or whether it will need to be created.”

    Seems to maybe suggest that the decision will not be passed to an individual or individuals as a sub-set of the committee – or at least if it does so then the decision will have to pass back through the committee (perhaps before granting TUE). Also this is talking about new rules for the UCI based on WADA directives for 2015. I’ll give them this, it at least sounds better than we have at the moment, but I agree that if they were more open about all this it would stop a lot of the needless speculation.

    June 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm #800523
    0
    Gkam84

    Really ill….hardly.
    I take
    Really ill….hardly.

    I take medication that contains glucocorticosteroids every day for my asthma and also different medication through the summer that also contain them for allergies, along with Triamcinolone’s.

    It is not because I am really ill, it is as a preventative measure, because without them I could become really ill.

    June 23, 2014 at 8:49 pm #800521
    0
    adrianoconnor

    “What has happened to the
    “What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition?”

    I don’t know anything about what goes on inside a team, but when you hear things like “the aggregation of marginal gains”, you can’t help but feel that this is where it could end up. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.

    I really hope pro cycling is doing it’s very best to be clean right now. Armstong’s generation did far too much damage. There can be no excuse for lying and covering up, but sadly it’s just part of our human nature.

    June 23, 2014 at 8:18 pm #800519
    0
    daddyELVIS

    Re: the original question, I
    Re: the original question, I get the feeling that Walsh is fuming about this, and he’s probably hoping that this is as bad as it gets with Sky otherwise he’ll have major egg on his face! I fear that such an unbearable conclusion to his ‘relationship’ with Sky may prevent him from delving too deep!

    Re: the TUE for Froome, leaving the UCI’s failings to one side (Cookson has major questions to answer after vowing to clean-up the sport), Sky’s behaviour needs to come under major scrutiny. How ill was Froome? – he must (or at least should) have been very ill for a team doc to apply for urgent treatment with glucocorticosteroids – so ill in fact that he surely should have been ordered to rest (the MPCC would have insisted that a rider from one of their member teams rested in this instance, or not take the drugs if the rider wished to continue – remember Nibali and the wasp sting on his face anyone?).

    So, were Sky using an illness (less severe than they suggest) as an excuse to gain a performance advantage without breaking any rules? – take a look back at Froome’s performance, he certainly doesn’t look too ill (he won a week-long stage race FFS). Check 2.34 – 3.10 and 4.10 – 4.29 in this clip (apologies for the ‘cheesy’ commentary):

    June 23, 2014 at 7:03 pm #800517
    0
    Gkam84

    BOOM….No
    BOOM….No committee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/International-Cycling-Union-ready-to-make-changes-to-procedure-for-issuing-Therapeutic-Use-Exemptions.html

    June 23, 2014 at 5:36 pm #800515
    0
    700c

    stumps wrote:Getting back to

    stumps wrote:
    Getting back to the original post – Walsh has made his money from Sky by being big buddy with them but, now that he has his money, he is reverting back to type of a press reporter.

    Disagree with that view.
    Walsh came to prominence pursuing Armstrong, one of the few who spoke out against him. He wrote a few books, published some articles, then spent a year at sky investigating whether or not they really were clean.

    He found no evidence of doping, the book seems reasonably objective, I wouldn’t say he gave them an easy tine. Yes he made some money writing about it afterwards, but don’t think that means he lacks integrity.

    He continues to be critical when he thinks sky are less than transparent, just as he was at times in his book.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:38 am #800513
    0
    Stumps

    Getting back to the original
    Getting back to the original post – Walsh has made his money from Sky by being big buddy with them but, now that he has his money, he is reverting back to type of a press reporter.

    There is no story here other than what the French press are trying to do in wind up Froome and Sky before we, the British, take a thrid in a row of their beloved race.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:33 am #800511
    0
    Gkam84

    The UCI “protocol” doesn’t
    The UCI “protocol” doesn’t even come into it, the have to follow the WADA code.

    They haven’t done that, WADA has the final say, they have told UCI to sort it out, yet the UCI will not be open and transparent with anyone.

    They have simply let Dr Zorzoli decide, bypassing the WADA code that demands a committee, so the UCI have failed to even stick by the code that governs ALL anti doping bodies. Meaning that Froome’s TUE was actually illegal.

    Until the UCI release the names and positions of their TUE committee (which doesn’t exist) then there will always be questions.

    Go to most other organisations who fall under the WADA code and you can find the names and positions of their TUE members

    June 23, 2014 at 11:22 am #800509
    0
    farrell

    So we have the French press
    So we have the French press saying the UCI has no committee in place.

    But the UCI have a protocol in place to speed up the TUE process where necessary without requiring a full meeting of all committee members.

    They also have somebody in place to act as co-ordinator for the committee.

    It seems highly unlikely to me that the UCI would go to all that effort to then not actually have a committee.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:16 am #800507
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:
    fukawitribe wrote:
    Gkam84 wrote:
    Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

    Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

    An individual cannot make the call without the committee though. So it is irrelevant who made the call on Froomes TUE if the UCI do not have a committee in place.

    That’s what i’m saying – sheesh. The issue is was there a committee (e.g. a standing committee) who delegated the decision, not whether an individual can make that decision. I’m unsure that I can make it any clearer.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:11 am #800505
    0
    Gkam84

    fukawitribe wrote:Gkam84

    fukawitribe wrote:
    Gkam84 wrote:
    Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

    Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

    An individual cannot make the call without the committee though. So it is irrelevant who made the call on Froomes TUE if the UCI do not have a committee in place.

    Here is an article that might help you http://inrng.com/2014/06/uci-vs-jdd-round-two-wada-guidelines-tue/

    Otherwise, you could do what I did last night and take the UCI course on anti doping.

    June 23, 2014 at 11:05 am #800503
    0
    farrell

    Gkam84 wrote:Farrell, that is

    Gkam84 wrote:
    Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

    Is it? Or is it more a case of a French tabloid trying to throw enough muck?

    June 23, 2014 at 10:58 am #800501
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:Farrell, that is

    Gkam84 wrote:
    Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

    Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 61 through 75 (of 88 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.