Wiggins - could this be a Similar issue as Lance A ?
Discussion
Thankyou4calling said:
mcelliott said:
Do know how bad Wggins asthma or whatever it is today is? do these flare ups only happen in races containing more than 30.000m of climbing where weightloss and recovery are key.
Yes especially if he has had a smoke in the morning. Really brings it on. the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
Pretty straightforward don't you think?
Edited by Granfondo on Tuesday 27th September 17:36
Granfondo said:
The criteria for obtaining a TUE.
the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
And you really think Sky are the only team exploiting this?! the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
Granfondo said:
pablo said:
And you really think Sky are the only team exploiting this?!
No! But you seem to think it's only the foreigners!
el stovey said:
I'll leave you lot to it but I'm not sure having approval to do something from the governing body can be rule breaking.
If you lot have uncovered genuine rule breaking you should call the police or WADA or British cycling and then Wiggins will get banned like all the actual dopers,
Please do, its painful reading your posts.If you lot have uncovered genuine rule breaking you should call the police or WADA or British cycling and then Wiggins will get banned like all the actual dopers,
And this comes from me who was a big fan of Brad and the team until this.
mcelliott said:
Of course all the other teams are exploiting this; cycling is one of the filthiest sports going! Anyone with a basic knowledge/history of the sport will know there hasn't been a clean win of the Tour de France for many many years. The difference with the other teams is that they don't pretend to be clean, and are never guilty of gobbing off from the moral high ground.
This.So many people in other sport have been waiting for the BC house of cards to fall, and its beginning to.
okgo said:
This.
So many people in other sport have been waiting for the BC house of cards to fall, and its beginning to.
Is it though? They've only done what we assume everyone else is doing.So many people in other sport have been waiting for the BC house of cards to fall, and its beginning to.
Let's be honest, BC put themselves on a pedestal and everyone had been writing down every last word hoping to trip them up. They haven't. They found some anomalies between things said a few years ago and things said this month. I totally agree or doesn't look good and the anomalies are alarming but It's hardly a smoking gun.
It just feels like there are double standards, some teams can employ banned riders (eg Movistar and Valverde) and still be lauded when they win, others do their best to have a clean team, identify and sack those with a dodgy past but are still chastised when they something they say in 2016 doesn't quite align with something they said in 2012.
pablo said:
okgo said:
This.
So many people in other sport have been waiting for the BC house of cards to fall, and its beginning to.
Is it though? They've only done what we assume everyone else is doing.So many people in other sport have been waiting for the BC house of cards to fall, and its beginning to.
Let's be honest, BC put themselves on a pedestal and everyone had been writing down every last word hoping to trip them up. They haven't. They found some anomalies between things said a few years ago and things said this month. I totally agree or doesn't look good and the anomalies are alarming but It's hardly a smoking gun.
It just feels like there are double standards, some teams can employ banned riders (eg Movistar and Valverde) and still be lauded when they win, others do their best to have a clean team, identify and sack those with a dodgy past but are still chastised when they something they say in 2016 doesn't quite align with something they said in 2012.
okgo said:
el stovey said:
I'll leave you lot to it but I'm not sure having approval to do something from the governing body can be rule breaking.
If you lot have uncovered genuine rule breaking you should call the police or WADA or British cycling and then Wiggins will get banned like all the actual dopers,
Please do, its painful reading your posts.If you lot have uncovered genuine rule breaking you should call the police or WADA or British cycling and then Wiggins will get banned like all the actual dopers,
And this comes from me who was a big fan of Brad and the team until this.
Each to their own as ever but this isn't a thread just for people that think sky are cheats is it?
You sound like you think sky and British cycling are all now dopers. I suppose I'd be upset too if I thought that. I don't at all though.
el stovey said:
dopers
No-one is accusing them of (I don't think, anyway) outright doping. That may or may not emerge in the future; however I think there is a distinction to be made between doping and non-clean. I would definitely put Wiggins in the latter. Yes he didn't break any rules but his ride was aided with a performance enhancing drug. If we could find out the rationale as to how that drug ended up in his system, things would become a lot clearer.mcelliott said:
el stovey said:
dopers
No-one is accusing them of (I don't think, anyway) outright doping. That may or may not emerge in the future; however I think there is a distinction to be made between doping and non-clean. I would definitely put Wiggins in the latter. Yes he didn't break any rules but his ride was aided with a performance enhancing drug. If we could find out the rationale as to how that drug ended up in his system, things would become a lot clearer.the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
Which part does Brad comply with?
mcelliott said:
No-one is accusing them of (I don't think, anyway) outright doping. That may or may not emerge in the future; however I think there is a distinction to be made between doping and non-clean. I would definitely put Wiggins in the latter. Yes he didn't break any rules but his ride was aided with a performance enhancing drug. If we could find out the rationale as to how that drug ended up in his system, things would become a lot clearer.
He's explained the rationale, he suffers arsema and allergies and complained of a flair up so the Doctor prescribed him the most potent and strongest general anti inflamtory they could (which also massively helps with the general inflamtaion caused by a 3 week bike race, weight loss and other hormonal responses to extreme physical stress), the UCI and Wada approved it, so he injected it.If you're tired and sore and have a dehydration headache in the morning then a Nurofen is performance enhancing, the difference between medicine and doping is only really a procedural one.
He clearly took the medicine to aid his peformance, or allow him to compete or enable him to do his job - see it how you will. This is not a moral issue anymore, it's one of semantics and following procedure, they can't ban all medicine they can't test for all PEDs and they wouldn't want to if they could because the performances would be well down, at this stage we just have to assume all sportmen are hypocrites who'd sell there own mother for a little public admiration (governing bodies likewise but replace public with Marketing budgets) and an advantage in the field - yes I'm talking about you Mr Froome - How very dare you.
I love cycling. I love the tdf and I've always been hugely proud of sky and BC.
I'm no medic or pro team expert but what is the likelihood of an asthmatic that needs serious drugs to manage it ( son is asthmatic - inhalers etc) getting to winter tdf? If so amazing achievement and should campaign and promote for asthma sufferers everywhere to show what can be achieved.
I'm personally disturbed by this and can't square the explanation.
I'm not sure DB knew. He looked very uncomfortable in the interview and seemed to be holding back. I hope to god there are not more things to come for froome, Thomas or the gb cycling team
Sad days. I had bought the virgin white sky/bc message.
I agree with mcelliot, not dirty but they should have surfaced this themselves. This has the potential for a monumental cluster f
k
Mike
I'm no medic or pro team expert but what is the likelihood of an asthmatic that needs serious drugs to manage it ( son is asthmatic - inhalers etc) getting to winter tdf? If so amazing achievement and should campaign and promote for asthma sufferers everywhere to show what can be achieved.
I'm personally disturbed by this and can't square the explanation.
I'm not sure DB knew. He looked very uncomfortable in the interview and seemed to be holding back. I hope to god there are not more things to come for froome, Thomas or the gb cycling team
Sad days. I had bought the virgin white sky/bc message.
I agree with mcelliot, not dirty but they should have surfaced this themselves. This has the potential for a monumental cluster f
kMike
Granfondo said:
mcelliott said:
el stovey said:
dopers
No-one is accusing them of (I don't think, anyway) outright doping. That may or may not emerge in the future; however I think there is a distinction to be made between doping and non-clean. I would definitely put Wiggins in the latter. Yes he didn't break any rules but his ride was aided with a performance enhancing drug. If we could find out the rationale as to how that drug ended up in his system, things would become a lot clearer.the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
Which part does Brad comply with?
To me it suggests that the UCI had already approved use of the drugs in previous TUEs and had no option.
pablo said:
Granfondo said:
mcelliott said:
el stovey said:
dopers
No-one is accusing them of (I don't think, anyway) outright doping. That may or may not emerge in the future; however I think there is a distinction to be made between doping and non-clean. I would definitely put Wiggins in the latter. Yes he didn't break any rules but his ride was aided with a performance enhancing drug. If we could find out the rationale as to how that drug ended up in his system, things would become a lot clearer.the banned drug can only be used to treat an acute or chronic medical condition
it must be highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance
and that there's no reasonable therapeutic alternative.
Which part does Brad comply with?
To me it suggests that the UCI had already approved use of the drugs in previous TUEs and had no option.
pablo said:
Its interesting that only Paolini and Danielson were with UCI world tour teams, the rest were pro continental etc. You could argue that the WT teams are being issued with TUEs and therefore dont have to get involved in the murky world of EPO or growth hormones these days to find their "equalisers"...
I'm still positive that there is a lot more going on than people want to admit, the Iglinsky case stank, that they were acting alone and without the teams knowledge is bullst. They were sacrifical lambs and paid handsomely for their efforts.
Sky are the only team who have been outed but if Wiggins was being issued with TUEas far back as his days at Slipstream, I guarantee every WT team has TUEs.
I'm sure there is a lot more going on than people like to admit. Problem is, and I'm sure its been mentioned earlier in the thread is the 'holier than thou' stance taken by Sky/Brailsford' I'm still positive that there is a lot more going on than people want to admit, the Iglinsky case stank, that they were acting alone and without the teams knowledge is bulls
t. They were sacrifical lambs and paid handsomely for their efforts. Sky are the only team who have been outed but if Wiggins was being issued with TUEas far back as his days at Slipstream, I guarantee every WT team has TUEs.
Yes, there are exemptions etc but taking the moral high ground leaves you 'rife' to be brought back down if you've ever get exposed.
Granfondo said:
Sorry but stop trying to blame everybody but the rider trying to gain an unfair advantage!
I give up, he hasn't gained an unfair advantage if the advantage is there for everyone else to exploit!! It's only unfair if for some reason, only brad was allowed to take that particular drug in that dosage. For all we know every other team had the same TUE, and you'd think if there was a legal way to boost performance, they'd all be on it.Now we all know drugs affect different people in different ways so you or I could take that stuff and we might experience different performance benefits but that's just the differences in our physiology.
pablo said:
Granfondo said:
Sorry but stop trying to blame everybody but the rider trying to gain an unfair advantage!
I give up, he hasn't gained an unfair advantage if the advantage is there for everyone else to exploit!! It's only unfair if for some reason, only brad was allowed to take that particular drug in that dosage. For all we know every other team had the same TUE, and you'd think if there was a legal way to boost performance, they'd all be on it.Now we all know drugs affect different people in different ways so you or I could take that stuff and we might experience different performance benefits but that's just the differences in our physiology.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff