Wiggins - could this be a Similar issue as Lance A ?
Discussion
I am certainly not joining the witch hunt for Sky Cycling that's for sure and at present the UCI have done nothing to suggest SKY are in trouble. Pushing the boundaries in professional sport who ever heard of such a thing this is 2016 not 1916 Sportmanship is dead just look at the footballer falling over every week to gain an advantage for their team. If Sky are using a legal way of gaining an advantage then good for them calling them Frauds is a bit rich. If its legal its legal if its not then there is a course of Action to take. This is a result of the moaning Aussies after the Olympics who just cant take a beating ...again. If there is a problem here it lies with the Medics and the Cycling Authorities.
johnxjsc1985 said:
El Guapo said:
Bloody right. He can start his redemption by handing back that knighthood, and Brailsford can give his back too.
just remind us of what he is guilty of doing and what sanctions the UCI have taken. 2nd question:
johnxjsc1985 said:
the UCI have done nothing
El Guapo said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
El Guapo said:
Bloody right. He can start his redemption by handing back that knighthood, and Brailsford can give his back too.
just remind us of what he is guilty of doing and what sanctions the UCI have taken. 2nd question:
johnxjsc1985 said:
the UCI have done nothing
el stovey said:
I see where you're confused. He isn't going to "hand back his knighthood" as you suggest, as he had an exemption to take the stuff you're unhappy about, making it legal. That's why the UCI haven't done anything.
What confuses me is why, if his drug taking was legit, did he lie about it?okgo said:
I blame the pub for selling me all that beer before I got in my car and smashed it into a load of innocent people. Get a grip John.
That's like saying Lance was never tested positive so it's their fault and fair play to him for taking all that s
t and winning as he was ahead of them
I have followed cycling for longer than I care to remember and I have no illusions about just how hard a sport it is and how some or even a lot of riders look for ways to ease the pain. The stuff I read seems very personal to Wiggins and Sky when the Peleton is filled with Riders now and in the past who have failed Drug tests and endured bans but they seem immune from all of this. When the Drugs taken have not been prescribed by a Doctor and approved by a Panel then I might get upset but as it is Sky and Wiggins are in the clear. That's like saying Lance was never tested positive so it's their fault and fair play to him for taking all that s
t and winning as he was ahead of them Its like the offside rule a player is either offside or he isn't there is no nearly about it. At this point Sky and Wiggins are definitely "on side".
El Guapo said:
el stovey said:
I see where you're confused. He isn't going to "hand back his knighthood" as you suggest, as he had an exemption to take the stuff you're unhappy about, making it legal. That's why the UCI haven't done anything.
What confuses me is why, if his drug taking was legit, did he lie about it?El Guapo said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
El Guapo said:
Bloody right. He can start his redemption by handing back that knighthood, and Brailsford can give his back too.
just remind us of what he is guilty of doing and what sanctions the UCI have taken. 2nd question:
johnxjsc1985 said:
the UCI have done nothing different to any other TUE application...
el stovey said:
Are you referring to his comments about not injecting anything, if so, he said "injecting" was a euphemism for doping. He was saying he wasn't doping as opposed to saying he hadn't had any actual injections.
Honestly. You honestly believe that? Wow. That's the sort of line you might use in primary school to escape punishment
el stovey said:
El Guapo said:
el stovey said:
I see where you're confused. He isn't going to "hand back his knighthood" as you suggest, as he had an exemption to take the stuff you're unhappy about, making it legal. That's why the UCI haven't done anything.
What confuses me is why, if his drug taking was legit, did he lie about it?el stovey said:
El Guapo said:
el stovey said:
I see where you're confused. He isn't going to "hand back his knighthood" as you suggest, as he had an exemption to take the stuff you're unhappy about, making it legal. That's why the UCI haven't done anything.
What confuses me is why, if his drug taking was legit, did he lie about it?"British Cycling have always had a no-needle policy, it’s been a mainstay of theirs; so it was something I grew up with as a bike rider. In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh s
t’, it’s a complete taboo...I’ve never had an injection, apart from I’ve had my vaccinations, and on occasion I’ve been put on a drip ..."That really doesn't read to me like a euphemism for doping and no more, it reads to me like trying to stress it well beyond that and they are not "merely" against doping but trying to say they are so against it they wouldn't countenance injections at all.
tertius said:
el stovey said:
El Guapo said:
el stovey said:
I see where you're confused. He isn't going to "hand back his knighthood" as you suggest, as he had an exemption to take the stuff you're unhappy about, making it legal. That's why the UCI haven't done anything.
What confuses me is why, if his drug taking was legit, did he lie about it?"British Cycling have always had a no-needle policy, it’s been a mainstay of theirs; so it was something I grew up with as a bike rider. In British cycling culture, at the word ‘needle’ or the sight of one, you go, ‘Oh s
t’, it’s a complete taboo...I’ve never had an injection, apart from I’ve had my vaccinations, and on occasion I’ve been put on a drip ..."That really doesn't read to me like a euphemism for doping and no more, it reads to me like trying to stress it well beyond that and they are not "merely" against doping but trying to say they are so against it they wouldn't countenance injections at all.
My feeling is they've possibly done something that isn't in the spirit of the rules, possibly actually against the rules. I'm clearly more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt than many here obviously. Having an exemption to use a banned substance certainly isn't doping in my eyes though. There's certainly a smell of dodgyness about the whole thing, which is disappointing from a team with SKYs no ex dopers stance. I know an ex professional cyclist who was caught doping and he'd be happy to find SKY guilty, I think many others are probably too.
TUEs in sport are a long more commonplace than this thread seems to suggest, I'm not against the exemptions themselves but feel their use should be made public.
The fact Wiggins had a TUE or any rider for that matter does not bother me in the slightest if the drug is used to treat the illness/injury ,but when the illness/injury is a red herring to enable a PED to be used and then re-used during the race and if failing a dope test can be explained away as the remenent of the TUE then it's cheating anyway you want to spin it!
I think it was Paula Radcliffe who stated that athletes shouldn't have to publicise their bloods data because the public weren't expert enough to understand them. I have a feeling this Wiggins situation is what was behind her statement. It seems plenty of proudly "clean' sports people have had the benefit of some medicinal help to level the playing field (even that sounds horrendous).
It's clear that Wiggins had the authorities he needed to have the injections he did despite the fact that lots of people state very firmly that they are performance enhancing. I think the problem is that it appears his symptoms were exaggerated in order to gain these authorities. I don't care what anyone says, if that is the case, and reading about how extreme someone's symptoms would normally have to be to even consider such powerful treatment, It would seem to be the case... it's cheating.
The best case scenario is that the approvals were given on an honest appraisal of symptoms. But even here, it seems possible this drug is capable of elevating performance beyond just alleviating symptoms, and if anyone thinks that is OK, I'd suggest you may as well just legalize it so everyone can use it - then you have a level playing field.
It's clear that Wiggins had the authorities he needed to have the injections he did despite the fact that lots of people state very firmly that they are performance enhancing. I think the problem is that it appears his symptoms were exaggerated in order to gain these authorities. I don't care what anyone says, if that is the case, and reading about how extreme someone's symptoms would normally have to be to even consider such powerful treatment, It would seem to be the case... it's cheating.
The best case scenario is that the approvals were given on an honest appraisal of symptoms. But even here, it seems possible this drug is capable of elevating performance beyond just alleviating symptoms, and if anyone thinks that is OK, I'd suggest you may as well just legalize it so everyone can use it - then you have a level playing field.
okgo said:
LOL I wonder why she would want such a thing. Her marathon record stands out like a sore thumb if you look at how performances have been lowered by the men in the same 16 years.
Correct and commentators still point out East German and Chinese records being suspect, the women's marathon record is ridiculous as is Radcliffes transformation from perennial 4th place runner to top of the tree almost overnight lerate said:
okgo said:
LOL I wonder why she would want such a thing. Her marathon record stands out like a sore thumb if you look at how performances have been lowered by the men in the same 16 years.
Correct and commentators still point out East German and Chinese records being suspect, the women's marathon record is ridiculous as is Radcliffes transformation from perennial 4th place runner to top of the tree almost overnight Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff