Tour de France

[dom9]

Whatever you say.

[Harv]

Oh don't get all pissy again Dom FFS.

They're all cheats.

[dom9]

Like I said, whatever you say.

[Red_Polo]

He can't be a cheat if he's not broken any rules.

I'm not saying he is, but of course he can be. Cheating is about fairness and ethics, not just what falls within the rules.

[dom9]

I'm not saying he is, but of course he can be. Cheating is about fairness and ethics, not just what falls within the rules.

I don't agree. Rules in sport set the boundaries of what you can and can't do. If those boundaries are found not to be acceptable, fit for purpose, or subject to abuse, then they should be changed.

[dom9]

I think there should be a version of each sport where doping is legalised. So you have clean version and the dirty version, with the grotesque pumped up muscle people running 100 metres in 6 seconds. That would be quite a spectacle.

[Harv]

I don't agree. Rules in sport set the boundaries of what you can and can't do. If those boundaries are found not to be acceptable, fit for purpose, or subject to abuse, then they should be changed.

What if you take a substance that the authorities aren't aware of yet, or haven't fully tested, that gives you an incredible advantage? During this delay in testing etc you happen win every event under the sun, blowing the opposition away, you're a total freak of nature, the worlds going crazy at your extraordinary abilities.
The substance then gets declared not within the rules of the sport and banned.

Are you not a cheat? Or is it ok, because when you took it there was no clinical evidence it helped you perform? You knowing full well however, that your extraordinary feats were 100% down to the advantage you gained from this now banned substance.

Moral dilemma for Dom.

[Harv]

I think there should be a version of each sport where doping is legalised. So you have clean version and the dirty version, with the grotesque pumped up muscle people running 100 metres in 6 seconds. That would be quite a spectacle.

I think people should have some ethics, and not be ****ing cheating cunts in whichever sport they have dedicated their life too.

[dom9]

What if you take a substance that the authorities aren't aware of yet, or haven't fully tested, that gives you an incredible advantage? During this delay in testing etc you happen win every event under the sun, blowing the opposition away, you're a total freak of nature, the worlds going crazy at your extraordinary abilities.
The substance then gets declared not within the rules of the sport and banned.

Are you not a cheat? Or is it ok, because when you took it there was no clinical evidence it helped you perform? You knowing full well however, that your extraordinary feats were 100% down to the advantage you gained from this now banned substance.

Moral dilemma for Dom.

True, true.

Although a substance is technically banned if the authorities aren't aware of its existence. But it's a fair point.

[labourRed]

It's as shady as ****, the timing above all.

Level playing field - it will be interesting to see what his competitors say about it.

[Shaggy]

I've not followed it that closely and don't know the ins and outs, but I know those brutal Irish cycling journalists - the ones who were so persistent over Armstrong and so key in outing him....David Walsh, Paul Kimmage etc....are absolutely all over Wiggins and they weren't happy with Marr's so-called soft interview with him.

[dom9]

Bottom line is that if a sportsperson goes to the authorities and asks them, "can I take this banned substance?", and they say "yes, go for it", then they've done little wrong as far as I can see.

Were the checks on his condition stringent enough? Well, that's a different question entirely.

For balance, it would be interesting how many requests for TUEs have been refused, and under what circumstances. But that would obviously require more data / privacy breaches. Are they handed out carte blanche? What are the criteria for granting exceptions? Is a doctor's note sufficient? Are medical histories scrutinised?

[Liverpool]

sporting authorities are exactly well trusted at the moment

given his and skys stance on drugs, it all seems a bit iffy

[Vermilion]

Wiggins TUEs ‘not performance-enhancing’, claims Team Sky’s Brailsford.

Sir Dave Brailsford, the Team Sky principal, breaking his silence on the controversial use of medical exemptions to allow Sir Bradley Wiggins to legally inject powerful corticosteroids, has trenchantly defended their conduct but promised more transparency in future.

Twenty-four hours after Wiggins delivered a much criticised defence of the three occasions on which he was injected with triamcinolone before his major races of 2011, 2012 and 2013, Brailsford insisted he had no regrets. “With hindsight we’ve looked at the recommendations, worked within the rules and applied the rules. That is what we did. We did do that. And we wouldn’t have done that if we didn’t think it was what was appropriate,” he told the Guardian.

But Brailsford, who played a pivotal role in British Cycling’s run of Olympic success before launching Team Sky, said that he accepted there was a need for more transparency in how the therapeutic use exemption system worked.

“Our intention is to change our policy and, with rider consent, to be public about TUEs. If someone did race with a TUE everybody would know beforehand,” he said.

“Or, if you needed a TUE, you wouldn’t race. I think we’re always learning lessons but, looking forward, the future is one where we need to drive towards greater transparency and making sure our policies are appropriate.”

Brailsford was insistent that the team did the right thing in applying for TUEs for Wiggins in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and that he had full trust in the process put in place by the UCI. “I knew he had been to the specialist. We don’t sit down every week and discuss every rider’s medical records. That’s not what happens. There is an ongoing discussion. He comes back from the specialist, says we’ve been recommended this and we need to apply for a TUE and that’s done,” Brailsford said.

“It’s easy to stand here with hindsight and make those claims. Rather than live in the world as it is now I go back to the time and say: ‘What information did I have to hand at the time? What did I believe in and trust from a TUE process? Did I make the right decision at the time? Would I have done the same now at the same point in time with the same information? I think the answer would have been yes.”

Asked specifically about who knew about the TUEs, among 13 acquired by Team Sky since their formation, he said there was not a “broad church” of people involved. “It’s not a broad church of people that are going to get involved in something like that. I had been told he was going to see a specialist and apply for a TUE. I was always: ‘Guys, whatever happens in this team you stick to the rules,’” he said. “You do not break the rules. You stay the right side of the line and stick to the rules always.”

Asked whether it was right that Wiggins appeared to receive the TUE as a preventative measure, Brailsford said: “You don’t wait until you have an asthma attack to take a puffer. The principle is the same. He has been recommended this. For me personally, at the time, did it ring any alarm bells? No.”

The injection of triamcinolone he received in 2012, before becoming the first British man to win the Tour de France, has come under particular scrutiny. Wiggins said on Sunday that he was “really struggling” with a pollen allergy in the run-up to the Tour, despite saying in his autobiography that he was in the form of his life and in good health.

“It’s difficult for me to comment on his comments in a book that he’s written. He’s had the opportunity to answer those. I haven’t seen the book. I’ve just got a process. We were abiding by all the UCI regulations. We were abiding by their no-needles policy,” Brailsford said.

The Team Sky principal insisted that “we never cross the line” but conceded that “at times, it’s challenging” to work out where the line is. “You can see from the scrutiny and the debate around this. It’s opinion. One thing is for sure, that you can see from the [Fancy Bears] hack that the TUEs are there,” he said. “In that sense, nothing wrong has been done in terms of breaking the rules. I think what people are questioning is whether it was inappropriate. At the time, having been involved in that process, I don’t think it was.”

Several experts have said that Wiggins would not have required the powerful corticosteroid if his condition had been properly managed. But Brailsford said he had complete faith in the system and in the UCI doctor Mario Zorzoli, who was briefly suspended in 2014 but later exonerated. It was Zorzoli who signed off on Wiggins’s 2011 TUE.

“He’s a great doctor, I must say. I’ve got lots of confidence in him. Even in the CIRC report, they credit the work he did. He was around the races, I knew him, I trusted him,” Brailsford said.

He also attempted to explain why Team Sky had never joined the Mouvement pour un Cyclisme Credible, whose members do not allow their riders to race if they require TUEs.

Brailsford said that when he first went to meetings about the nascent organisation, he was concerned that it would not go as far as Team Sky in its zero tolerance approach to former dopers and said he would rather work with the UCI to improve the rules for all teams rather than as part of a voluntary group.

“We have set out as a team to try and achieve high standards. I think we have achieved high standards and high results. We have been scrutinised many, many times in a fierce way over the last few years and still are,” he added, insisting he had “no regrets”.

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And if they have an issue or a concern or want to have an opinion they are absolutely entitled to. It’s up to us to demonstrate that we live by our standards and demonstrate that what we say is robust and in line with what we set out to do.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/26/dave-brailsford-defends-bradley-wiggins-tue

[Vermilion]

Something that i remember well is Wiggins getting off his bike during the TDF with a face like thunder because he was angry at the insinuations being made about him.

All seems a bit odd now that he so vehemently defended himself at the time.

While they might not have broken any laws, played within the rules, it makes me wonder whether the asking and getting permission was just a cover for more regular use.