Wiggins - could this be a Similar issue as Lance A ?
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
Welshbeef said:
........
Huge risk to Wiggins now he needs to respond properly
What does Wiggins need to add that hasn't already been confirmed by the team he was riding for at the time?Huge risk to Wiggins now he needs to respond properly
Sky made a statement, and now this committee have found that there was no rule breaking. What they have done is attack Sky based upon some made-up perception of what is 'ethically correct'!
Who gets to set the ethical compass and decide what is ethically acceptable and what isn't?
The Sky team used the rules to their advantage, they exploited the loopholes in the rules which were available to every team to put riders on the podium, to put riders in a yellow jersey, and to win gold medals. On their ethical compass they were winning within the rules and that has been confirmed by the investigation.
As such bad press is somewhat going to reduce the sponsorship as why would they want to be associated to something that can harm their own brand?
I think a way out of it would be for him to say you know what he’s i did take those as it’s in the rules and I pushed those rules to the maximum. No different to the bike development or training up mountains all the time v flat riding training.
Welshbeef said:
The Surveyor said:
Welshbeef said:
........
Huge risk to Wiggins now he needs to respond properly
What does Wiggins need to add that hasn't already been confirmed by the team he was riding for at the time?Huge risk to Wiggins now he needs to respond properly
Sky made a statement, and now this committee have found that there was no rule breaking. What they have done is attack Sky based upon some made-up perception of what is 'ethically correct'!
Who gets to set the ethical compass and decide what is ethically acceptable and what isn't?
The Sky team used the rules to their advantage, they exploited the loopholes in the rules which were available to every team to put riders on the podium, to put riders in a yellow jersey, and to win gold medals. On their ethical compass they were winning within the rules and that has been confirmed by the investigation.
As such bad press is somewhat going to reduce the sponsorship as why would they want to be associated to something that can harm their own brand?
I think a way out of it would be for him to say you know what he’s i did take those as it’s in the rules and I pushed those rules to the maximum. No different to the bike development or training up mountains all the time v flat riding training.
TUE is to be used to treat a medical condition and the report has accused Sky and Wiggins of using it to enhance his W/KG not to treat his "athsma"!
Granfondo said:
Nope.
TUE is to be used to treat a medical condition and the report has accused Sky and Wiggins of using it to enhance his W/KG not to treat his "athsma"!
In that case it is akin to Tax Avoidance. TUE is to be used to treat a medical condition and the report has accused Sky and Wiggins of using it to enhance his W/KG not to treat his "athsma"!
Why are some posters on here really going “oh it doesn’t matter what’s all the fuss about?” This is our biggest ever gold champion winner multiple Tour de France sinner and knighted for his achievements? Heck even SPOTy too!!
It’s huge news - and something which could destroy or severely tarnish his career.
The report is a bit contradictory when it says (about the TUE)
“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 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.”
But what they did sounds like a violation of / failure to meet Article 4.1 (b) of the UCI Regulations for TUE:
A rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met:
a. The prohibited substance or prohibited method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld.
b. The therapeutic use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method is highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be anticipated by a return to the rider’s normal state of health following the treatment of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method.
d. The necessity for the use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method is not a consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior use (without a TUE) of a substance or method which was prohibited at the time of such use.
“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 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.”
But what they did sounds like a violation of / failure to meet Article 4.1 (b) of the UCI Regulations for TUE:
A rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met:
a. The prohibited substance or prohibited method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld.
b. The therapeutic use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method is highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be anticipated by a return to the rider’s normal state of health following the treatment of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method.
d. The necessity for the use of the prohibited substance or prohibited method is not a consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior use (without a TUE) of a substance or method which was prohibited at the time of such use.
Welshbeef said:
Granfondo said:
Nope.
TUE is to be used to treat a medical condition and the report has accused Sky and Wiggins of using it to enhance his W/KG not to treat his "athsma"!
In that case it is akin to Tax Avoidance. TUE is to be used to treat a medical condition and the report has accused Sky and Wiggins of using it to enhance his W/KG not to treat his "athsma"!
Why are some posters on here really going “oh it doesn’t matter what’s all the fuss about?” This is our biggest ever gold champion winner multiple Tour de France sinner and knighted for his achievements? Heck even SPOTy too!!
It’s huge news - and something which could destroy or severely tarnish his career.
It's akin to tax evasion.
But the TUE is outside the control of the team. It requires multiple approvals, including Drs and an appropriate anti doping authority
Misuse of TUE to enable higher levels of performance enhancing substances to be used would be very serious and indicate something very seriously wrong within the national doping control agencies and or the UCI
From the UCI's own website http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exem...
"A TUE is special permission to use a prohibited substance or method for a legitimate medical condition.
Riders, like everyone else, may have illnesses or condition which requires a particular medication. If a substance contained in your medication or the method used appears on the Prohibited List, you must apply for a TUE before starting the treatment. After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) has reviewed your application, you may be given authorization to obtain treatment.
The UCI TUEC is composed of independent experts in the fields of clinical sports and exercise medicine. It is the CADF, independent entity mandated by the UCI to run the bulk of its anti-doping program, that provides administrative support to the TUEC,"
and
"Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.
...
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
UK Anti-Doping
...!
Wiggins had TUEs via the French doping authority and, later via UKAD (not sure on that) or the UCI directly later.
Misuse of TUE to enable higher levels of performance enhancing substances to be used would be very serious and indicate something very seriously wrong within the national doping control agencies and or the UCI
From the UCI's own website http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exem...
"A TUE is special permission to use a prohibited substance or method for a legitimate medical condition.
Riders, like everyone else, may have illnesses or condition which requires a particular medication. If a substance contained in your medication or the method used appears on the Prohibited List, you must apply for a TUE before starting the treatment. After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) has reviewed your application, you may be given authorization to obtain treatment.
The UCI TUEC is composed of independent experts in the fields of clinical sports and exercise medicine. It is the CADF, independent entity mandated by the UCI to run the bulk of its anti-doping program, that provides administrative support to the TUEC,"
and
"Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.
...
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
UK Anti-Doping
...!
Wiggins had TUEs via the French doping authority and, later via UKAD (not sure on that) or the UCI directly later.
JPJPJP said:
But the TUE is outside the control of the team. It requires multiple approvals, including Drs and an appropriate anti doping authority
Misuse of TUE to enable higher levels of performance enhancing substances to be used would be very serious and indicate something very seriously wrong within the national doping control agencies and or the UCI
From the UCI's own website http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exem...
"A TUE is special permission to use a prohibited substance or method for a legitimate medical condition.
Riders, like everyone else, may have illnesses or condition which requires a particular medication. If a substance contained in your medication or the method used appears on the Prohibited List, you must apply for a TUE before starting the treatment. After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) has reviewed your application, you may be given authorization to obtain treatment.
The UCI TUEC is composed of independent experts in the fields of clinical sports and exercise medicine. It is the CADF, independent entity mandated by the UCI to run the bulk of its anti-doping program, that provides administrative support to the TUEC,"
and
"Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.
...
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
UK Anti-Doping
...!
Wiggins had TUEs via the French doping authority and, later via UKAD (not sure on that) or the UCI directly later.
Does a doctor from the relevant doping authority examine the athlete in person or a form signed off by a doctor on the team?Misuse of TUE to enable higher levels of performance enhancing substances to be used would be very serious and indicate something very seriously wrong within the national doping control agencies and or the UCI
From the UCI's own website http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exem...
"A TUE is special permission to use a prohibited substance or method for a legitimate medical condition.
Riders, like everyone else, may have illnesses or condition which requires a particular medication. If a substance contained in your medication or the method used appears on the Prohibited List, you must apply for a TUE before starting the treatment. After the UCI Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC) has reviewed your application, you may be given authorization to obtain treatment.
The UCI TUEC is composed of independent experts in the fields of clinical sports and exercise medicine. It is the CADF, independent entity mandated by the UCI to run the bulk of its anti-doping program, that provides administrative support to the TUEC,"
and
"Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.
...
Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
UK Anti-Doping
...!
Wiggins had TUEs via the French doping authority and, later via UKAD (not sure on that) or the UCI directly later.
Is there any relevance of the reported use of the medication outside competition, the TUE rules look to relate to the use of medication to treat ailments when competing, not when training.
The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
The Surveyor said:
Is there any relevance of the reported use of the medication outside competition, the TUE rules look to relate to the use of medication to treat ailments when competing, not when training.
The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
That isn't quite correct. Para 110 in the DCMS report accuses that medication was being used to enhance performance full stop (particularly in 2012). And that via the use of TUE ahead of the 2012 TdeF, that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of the medication during that race too.The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
Wiggins would be very regularly tested both in and out of competition and would have been in that regime for many years.
A positive would only be recorded if the level measured was above that level allowed (a level much higher than the level at which performance enhancement could occur)
JPJPJP said:
The Surveyor said:
Is there any relevance of the reported use of the medication outside competition, the TUE rules look to relate to the use of medication to treat ailments when competing, not when training.
The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
That isn't quite correct. Para 110 in the DCMS report accuses that medication was being used to enhance performance full stop (particularly in 2012). And that via the use of TUE ahead of the 2012 TdeF, that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of the medication during that race too.The accusation was that the medication was being used to enhance Wiggins training (when no doping tests were being done) rather than it being used to treat his asthma during completion. He being 'clean' and using his medication within the rules of the TUE when racing, but using them for performance enhancement when training when the 'rules' aren't applicable.
Wiggins would be very regularly tested both in and out of competition and would have been in that regime for many years.
A positive would only be recorded if the level measured was above that level allowed (a level much higher than the level at which performance enhancement could occur)
yellowjack said:
It's funny really.
Team Sky haven't been demonstrated to have broken any rules. But they have apparently "stepped over an ethical line".
How is this any different to a football player rolling around on the floor faking injury in order to influence the referee to give a decision or discipline an opponent?
Lots of sports are awash with doping. Lots of teams are happy to dope within the rules when something new and not specifically excluded surfaces as 'performance enhancing'. Then WADA change the rules, amend the list, and off they go to look for the next new chemical advantage to be gained. Then it gets outlawed and repeat,ad infinitum.
I cycle, and I've played sport. Lots of sport. I've never taken drugs to aid performance, but by the same token I've never tried to pull the wool over a referee's (or umpire's) eyes. Judo, Boxing, Football, Rugby Union, Hockey, Softball, and now MTB Racing. Break the rules, make a mistake? Raise a hand, and apologise to your team mates, your opponent(s), and the match officials for sullying the game. Don't lie and cheat to ensure you escape censure, or to gain advantage. But then I wasn't playing at anywhere near the highest levels, and so the difference between winning and losing was usually limited to the tone of the post-match 'inquest' into what went right or wrong.
As a cyclist and follower of the big road races, it massively disappoints me to see that Team Sky's claims of 'riding clean' were hollow. But it doesn't surprise me. And lots of other Continental Grand Tour teams have been affected by similar issues during the same period, and worse too, by out-and-out illegal doping with completely banned substances.
Going back years, steroids and stimulants have been used in cycling. Should we be tearing down the Tommy Simpson Memorial on Mt Ventoux? Or at least not restore or repair it if the weather does this...
...to it again. After all, he was a World Champion in an era lacking any official doping controls, and a habitual (ab)user of amphetamines. But then again, if we start stripping the pre control era drugs cheats of their titles, perhaps the statues of Cecil Rhodes and his peers ought to come down too? Maybe the "snowflakes" are right after all?
Team SKY did not cheat. The committee of MPs (and doping control agencies) have said as much. They just pushed as far as was legal within the existing framework of rules. Just as many individuals and teams have done in many and varied sports for as long as records have existed. The rules keep evolving, changing to meet the challenge of new equipment and pharmaceuticals being developed to exploit current rules and laws. It will ever be so while we have 'professional sportsmen and sportswomen'. The better they are, the more they earn, so they'll turn every trick they can to keep ahead of the competition. That's what Team SKY are "guilty" of. I don't like it, but it's not grounds for stripping people of their titles. If it leaves a sour taste, then what needs to happen is that the control regime for TUEs needs to be tightened up, and then the tighter rules applied with zero tolerance going forward. Or maybe we need to examine more closely whether Sir Roger Bannister had any nefarious assistance when he broke 4 minutes for a mile? Act quickly I say! If we're going to blacken the name of a British Athletics hero, we need to do it before he goes into the ground, not afterwards!
TL;DR? Team SKY didn't cheat. The MPs said as much. But cheating has been going on forever, in almost every sport. It happens, so either we need to re-examine every single athlete, in every single race ever, or accept it and concentrate on applying the rules going forward...
Rugby is not a great sport to use as an example - I played for 30 years and for most of that spent a large proportion of each match seeing what amount of cheating I could get away with. Possibly the GOAT was also a master of cheating - Richie Mccaw, never unnecessarily onside. I can only assume you played with the other part-timers in the back Team Sky haven't been demonstrated to have broken any rules. But they have apparently "stepped over an ethical line".
How is this any different to a football player rolling around on the floor faking injury in order to influence the referee to give a decision or discipline an opponent?
Lots of sports are awash with doping. Lots of teams are happy to dope within the rules when something new and not specifically excluded surfaces as 'performance enhancing'. Then WADA change the rules, amend the list, and off they go to look for the next new chemical advantage to be gained. Then it gets outlawed and repeat,ad infinitum.
I cycle, and I've played sport. Lots of sport. I've never taken drugs to aid performance, but by the same token I've never tried to pull the wool over a referee's (or umpire's) eyes. Judo, Boxing, Football, Rugby Union, Hockey, Softball, and now MTB Racing. Break the rules, make a mistake? Raise a hand, and apologise to your team mates, your opponent(s), and the match officials for sullying the game. Don't lie and cheat to ensure you escape censure, or to gain advantage. But then I wasn't playing at anywhere near the highest levels, and so the difference between winning and losing was usually limited to the tone of the post-match 'inquest' into what went right or wrong.
As a cyclist and follower of the big road races, it massively disappoints me to see that Team Sky's claims of 'riding clean' were hollow. But it doesn't surprise me. And lots of other Continental Grand Tour teams have been affected by similar issues during the same period, and worse too, by out-and-out illegal doping with completely banned substances.
Going back years, steroids and stimulants have been used in cycling. Should we be tearing down the Tommy Simpson Memorial on Mt Ventoux? Or at least not restore or repair it if the weather does this...
...to it again. After all, he was a World Champion in an era lacking any official doping controls, and a habitual (ab)user of amphetamines. But then again, if we start stripping the pre control era drugs cheats of their titles, perhaps the statues of Cecil Rhodes and his peers ought to come down too? Maybe the "snowflakes" are right after all?Team SKY did not cheat. The committee of MPs (and doping control agencies) have said as much. They just pushed as far as was legal within the existing framework of rules. Just as many individuals and teams have done in many and varied sports for as long as records have existed. The rules keep evolving, changing to meet the challenge of new equipment and pharmaceuticals being developed to exploit current rules and laws. It will ever be so while we have 'professional sportsmen and sportswomen'. The better they are, the more they earn, so they'll turn every trick they can to keep ahead of the competition. That's what Team SKY are "guilty" of. I don't like it, but it's not grounds for stripping people of their titles. If it leaves a sour taste, then what needs to happen is that the control regime for TUEs needs to be tightened up, and then the tighter rules applied with zero tolerance going forward. Or maybe we need to examine more closely whether Sir Roger Bannister had any nefarious assistance when he broke 4 minutes for a mile? Act quickly I say! If we're going to blacken the name of a British Athletics hero, we need to do it before he goes into the ground, not afterwards!
TL;DR? Team SKY didn't cheat. The MPs said as much. But cheating has been going on forever, in almost every sport. It happens, so either we need to re-examine every single athlete, in every single race ever, or accept it and concentrate on applying the rules going forward...
Edited by yellowjack on Monday 5th March 09:12
The report is strange in that it is accusing Team Sky of only just staying within the rules. All rather odd. It is MPs after all and I suppose we should expect them to come to a conclusion that all the time they've taken has not been a waste of our money.
This is not a case as in the past of confusing the testing methods. If, as evidenced, the sport's regulations have not been breached then the committee should have accepted this. Their conclusion should have been that the regs should be tighter.
Taking anonymous verbals as fact is, well, something MPs would do to ensure they could come to the conclusion they wanted.
I've got no time for Sky, but even I have to admit that they have not done anything against the regulations.
Have they done something against the spirit of the regs? It seems that they have. From the tone of their comment on the findings it seems they have not challenged running the line close.
Drugs in sport is a stain. Those at a high level set performance standards using drugs that aspirants know that if they want to challenge they will have to do the same thing, and so it cascades. Someone mentioned rugby. You don't have to go regularly to realise that players bulk up at an unreasonable rate. Be hit by one of these monsters and the first thing you want to do is match them.
The regs need tightening.
Should all medication, at least at top level, be given by doctors independent of the teams and at specific times? Or, at the very least, have medically qualified observers?
The way forward is to admit that the regs are unsuited for purpose and to change them rather than pillorying a specific team/rider who have, it appears, conformed to the rules.
Did anyone doubt they were pushing the barriers and without the justification of of a medical imperative?
Shame on Sky and Wiggins. Their behaviour will encourage aspirants to develop ailments that need special medical support.
It's cycling though. No one expected it to be entirely pure.
This is not a case as in the past of confusing the testing methods. If, as evidenced, the sport's regulations have not been breached then the committee should have accepted this. Their conclusion should have been that the regs should be tighter.
Taking anonymous verbals as fact is, well, something MPs would do to ensure they could come to the conclusion they wanted.
I've got no time for Sky, but even I have to admit that they have not done anything against the regulations.
Have they done something against the spirit of the regs? It seems that they have. From the tone of their comment on the findings it seems they have not challenged running the line close.
Drugs in sport is a stain. Those at a high level set performance standards using drugs that aspirants know that if they want to challenge they will have to do the same thing, and so it cascades. Someone mentioned rugby. You don't have to go regularly to realise that players bulk up at an unreasonable rate. Be hit by one of these monsters and the first thing you want to do is match them.
The regs need tightening.
Should all medication, at least at top level, be given by doctors independent of the teams and at specific times? Or, at the very least, have medically qualified observers?
The way forward is to admit that the regs are unsuited for purpose and to change them rather than pillorying a specific team/rider who have, it appears, conformed to the rules.
Did anyone doubt they were pushing the barriers and without the justification of of a medical imperative?
Shame on Sky and Wiggins. Their behaviour will encourage aspirants to develop ailments that need special medical support.
It's cycling though. No one expected it to be entirely pure.
wsurfa said:
Rugby is not a great sport to use as an example - I played for 30 years and for most of that spent a large proportion of each match seeing what amount of cheating I could get away with. Possibly the GOAT was also a master of cheating - Richie Mccaw, never unnecessarily onside. I can only assume you played with the other part-timers in the back
Rugby? I never wore a number lower than 9, more often 10 or 15, and then pretty much stopped after school. I tried to take up rugby again when I joined the army, but a wee incident in which I "struck an NCO" (in my defence it was while I was still half asleep) led to me being offered the choice of "tapping the boards in front of the old man" or "volunteer for the boxing team and we'll say no more about it". I, of course, volunteered for the boxing team. I later found out that, because I'd not been given time to wake up properly, there'd have been no charge to answer anyway!wsurfa said:
Rugby is not a great sport to use as an example - I played for 30 years and for most of that spent a large proportion of each match seeing what amount of cheating I could get away with. Possibly the GOAT was also a master of cheating - Richie Mccaw, never unnecessarily onside. I can only assume you played with the other part-timers in the back
Steady there. Mccaw only ever cheated twice a game.Admittedly it was once for 40 minutes in the first half and once again for 40 minutes in the second half.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff