UCI boss calls for investigation into Team Sky allegations

Either a substance is band or can be used for TUE, does it offer everyone a advantage if they take it. Or does it equal the field for a athlete with a ailment, not taking them beyond certain normal vitals. A serious look has to be made into catered drugs for a athlete  with a supposed ailment. Where the drug might not enhance everybody, so it's not a known enhancement. Certain substance  can't be  therapeutic and a enhancement. So the same drug might do me good and absolutely nothing for you, and you shouldn't be talking it.

Thank you for taking the time to comment Doc_Davo, very informative and bang on for me. To be honest it’s the best thing I’ve read on the case. Have to cut through so much rubbish published to get an honest stand on it

So on tge sat so if one anonymous source Team Sky are guilty. Niw, if you look at the 2012 TdF team and try and see who was there and, potentially doped, Cav, Eisel and Eddie Bos, would not have featured. Froome says he didn't take the drug named and Richie Porte is well known for his anti drug stance. Surely, if tgere is a smoking gun or needle filled with dope, then the remaining riders who are no longer on Sky roster might be interested in immunity for testimony. Fairly simple from my point of view then we will all know tgr case is proved or can put this thing in the bin, dependent on outcome.

Smear and inuendo as well as political ambitions are a toxic combination.

Oh and with that nugget DL of the UCI, why did he not mention that (I’m sure someone will correct me) over 60% of riders at the tour (obv not everyone is tested during the tour but a lot are) held TUEs at the time of testing, don’t for one instance have people believing it’s just Team Sky doing this... or does he not know that?

as was quoted ‘a lot of sick people race bikes!’

There are a few things that really boil my pi$$ over this,

1) The Committee paper was to report findings on doping in sport, not just Cycling, Sky, Wiggins, and UK Athletics. The whistleblower bought circumstantial evidence implicating 150 athletes across many sports including ‘football, cricket and tennis’, naming 4 football clubs by name to the committee. One of which is Leicester city (per there written evidence response - basically, “f**k off before we sue you”)

2) The whistleblower in this instance, to kick off this committee, was none other than convicted doping recreational athlete Dan Stevens and reading between the lines (as a select committee does) his motive was because he was pissed at UKAD for not giving him a 75% reduction in ban after assisting them. (From his statement given to the committee)

3) The news agencies and media outlets reporting of what a committees ‘powers’ are, which is an ‘opinion based upon information gathered’, not ‘a judgement based on facts gathered’ - 2 wildly different thing, With a lot of people including DL of the UCI believing to be the latter.

4) The summary and key comments and conclusions of the paper do not mention Wiggins, Sky or British cycling by name - however they do refer to some serious allegation made by someone who all our friends in the cycling media have failed to report on.

5) The source for a lot of the evidence is flaky at best, and down right destructive when considering the fall out in the direction of those implicated by the media at worst , i.e. the expert witness testimony for the power of corticosteroids is David’s Millers piece from the New York Times.

6) The words spoken during select committee meetings are subject to parliamentary privileges and that no prosecution can be brought against anyone in the committee . This as wiggins said, leaves him with less rights than a ‘criminal’ in court, there is no challenging of evidence, no cross examination of evidence and no chance for rebuttals, so basically if you don’t agree with it, you’re disagreeing with parliament.

7) The Sky whistleblower is allowed to remain anonymous, again, given that the media feel judgement had been served by the committee and they can determine the sentence wigggins serves - the chance to check the integrity of the person behind the email testimony should be allowed.

8) The lack of understanding of the purpose behind the report, reason, methods married up with it’s poor quality - it had the opportunity it had the opportunity to be paradigm shifting, but due to it being to the standard of an undergrads first year coursework piece, it will implement zero change.

9) The real nitty gritty detail of the ‘evidence’ submitted has not been widely reported by the media, Nicole Cooke’s shocking claims, the aligations against other sports, the push back from WADA over the committees recommendation and the conflict between them have all come at the cost of low hanging fruit journalism. This includes David Walsh coming out in the Times with his little bit, whilst completely ignoring the TIMES vested interest in the support of the chief whistleblower.

10) 7 days earlier the committee paper into the NDA contract was published, it highlights how the overspend of the contract is now at £2.8bn, more than £550m of tax payers money was paid out to contractors for work not actually undertaken and it’s so far cost tax payers an £122m in extra taxes... the number of column inches for this in mainstream media is absolutely nothing compared to 2 individual sports have received on a report into doping across all sports.

I would advise all sports fans to actually take the time to read the summary, then conclusions, then the report and then start digging into the body of ‘evidence’ gathered by the committee and for added fun the select committee guidance notes, the bios of the select committee members and some other select committee reports rather than just rely on Dan Roan, the BBC and then all other media outlets copying those guys to tell the story.,

People would probably/maybe actually agree then that the media have nicely cherry picked their story for either their own gain or it’s been plain lazy journalism - as the real gripping stuff is in the detail, where, like the select committee you can form you own opinions on ‘doping in sport*’

*not just sky and wiggins.

Don, I'd offer up British Cycling as another team that are in the middle, quiet huh?

Also they are in the middle of one doping case are they not?

It's time to have a substance allowing governing body to make it's own races, the catch put 90% of winnings into a escrow service until retirement.

Lapartient is playing to the grandstand.

He can call for an investigation but as the investigators are now independent he doesn't actually have to deliver one.

He also calls for clarity and restraint in Froome's case but knows that the UCI could suspend him and yet doesn't as he knows that he would be in a legal quagmire if he did.

He doesn't want a one term presidency and so is courting the good opinion of the non-anglophone voting members of the UCI who are less than entirely comfortable of the domination of the sport's major events by Sky. 

None of which makes Sky squeaky or clean but let's consider the President of the UCI's motives before taking his opinions, rather than his actions, at face value.

The best team is always hated the most.Sky are just the best.Get over it . I'd like to see an investigation into treks use of EPO after their rider was caught using last year.

I've always had nothing but positive experiences when in continental Europe, more so when on bike. People take you as they find you far more than UK, US, AUS.

Had a good chinwag with local mayor and dignitaries when visiting village where my home cities troops were wiped out in WWI. They were very interested in my bike and how far I'd come, they were very happy about the fact I didn't wear a 'caskette' either. 

I've found the bike is common ground and breaks down boundaries pretty much everywhere.

Politicians AKA race organisers with money at stake are a different breed of person.

If this forum is any indication, if the UCI found more than Parliament it would be brushed aside by many as "anti-British" or a "witchhunt" or "fake news". Is it so hard to believe that a British team could cheat just like every other nation has had doping cheats? 

I would also ask if such an investigation is good for the long-term health of the sport. In retrospect, given the money Lance Armstrong/US Postal brought to the sport and the subsequent retreat of sponsors after his ban, why risk that again? The sport is still a financial hellscape in part because they work on an early 1900s economic structure and also because the UCI loves biting the hand that feeds it. Team Sky is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Hate them or love, cycling needs them. That said, Brailsford is a dishonest tool and I'd love to see him taken down a peg or two.

"UCI president David Lappartient has said that the governing body should open an investigation into Team Sky to address the allegations contained in the report published this week by a House of Commons Select Committee"

Well, the first thing the UCI could do is ask the Commons Select Committee for the evidence that rules have been broken.

Oh, there wasn't any....

The cycling cheating malarkey doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Way back to the years when used to watch Tommy Simpson it just keeps on rolling along with doping and drug abuse allegations.

its one of them, like it is and always will be!

IMO 

The UCI President is French, the French hate the Brits, they hurl insults and pots of pis at the Brits, what's not to love about the Brits winning the 'Tour de France'. .

Lappartient comes across as a man on the make, playing to a particular anti-British gallery.

Anything to do with rupert murdoch is bound to be cuntish, he's one of the biggest cunts on the planet. Up there with Bush, blair, mandelson, beckham etc

How very strange that the UCI  should now question the integrity of thier own TUE process ? They should defend the the fact that an approved TUE is not doping  - otherwise what's the point of the TUE sytem  .. 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 of those rules have been broken. Hang in there Brad, Dave and SKY - the select committe have expressed an opinion only. - you have every right to express the opposite opinion.

Quote:

If UKAD have finished their investigation, what's this team going to uncover???????

I don't understand what SKY hope to gain from all the lack of clarity and use of the unknown. I have more respect for the guys who are charged and take the punishment. The uncertainty should not be acceptable in this day and age, especially after Lance. It's almost like we've learnt nothing and SKY know that there are enough fanboys out there to keep them afloat.

There is enough doubt in my mind that they are not clean and honest.

What proof, your office signed off the TUE, you have the paperwork in your drawer. 

An investigation prompted by Dan Roan flying out to Switzerland and firing loaded questions.

Sutton said the source wasn't telling the truth about the tour group training in isolation and Wiggins would have been tested in and out of competition, so using steroids would have been picked up.

If UKAD have finished their investigation, what's this team going to uncover???????