UKH

The time is ripe for Bradley's promise to give his explosive revelations... And a revised version of William Fotheringam's ghosted diary for the 2012 TdF (I couldn't face my family if it was revealed that I doped).  

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/bradley-wiggins-and-team-sky-...

At the commencement of the committee, the court of UKC found that Parliament had no place investigating the practices of British athletes and a commercial organisation. Does this give us  any good reason to revise this verdict?

And, second, will I ever fill my long-held ambition to deliver to Seb Coe a cake with a file inside?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Elite cycling is corrupt and full of cheating of this type. Probably best to assume that they are all at it, thus levelling the field, and may the best cheater win.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

They used drugs to increase performance within the framework of what is legal. (!?)

Nothing to see here, move along now.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Is this report considered damming because it hints at illegal drug use which it's not able to prove or are Team Sky being dammed because they pushed the limits of the rules without breaking them?

In reply to Tyler:

But i'm confused. Is triamcinolone allowed to be taken to boost your performance if you are not an asthmatic (as seems to be the case here). Or are you allowed to lie about your health for cover to take the drug to boost your performance?

And is that all within the rules?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

What qualifies the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to make an assessment on whether Team Sky cheated when  UK Anti-Doping (Ukad)  was unable to make an unequivocal conclusion, and who are presumably much better informed and have better access to data, specimens, etc?  

In reply to ClimberEd:

If they used ibuprofen to help recovery for the next day then they'd be using drugs within the framework of what is legal to improve performance...

Completely agree. Nothing new to see here. Why on earth this body has anything to say on the subject when we have UKADA who've already done this death is totally beyond me.

 

In reply to Max factor:

maybe they have access to other data eg medical history of asthma?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Yes, they would. I'm not sure what your point is, what you have said is true.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Because they are controling at least some of the money that is flowing towards sport in general, of which team Sky got a share during the years in question, and parliament committees have a duty to ensure that money they allocate is spent as intended?

Also, because UKADA are clearly not doing their job (as most other national anti doping agencies), or at least not the job they are officially supposed to do?

Even if there are no new pieces of evidence in the open (yet, I assume), at least the blatant  fluimicil lie has been highlighted again. I hope the whole episode spells the economic end of Sky, and good f*cking riddance, too. 

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

This.

In reply to cb294:

With regard to Wiggins, what is it that UKAD should have done ?

It isn't up to them to approve TUEs.

The TUE process at the time was flawed and open to abuse. Team Sky almost certainly abused it, and no doubt many other teams did as well, but at the end of the day if you ask for and are granted permission to use a drug then you cant't be retrospectively sanctioned for using it. You have to play to the rules in place at the time.

Likewise Team Sky's record keeping was so conveniently full of holes that an episode of Yes Minister springs to mind. But again the rules weren't in place.

So it is entirely appropriate that the select comm tells UKAD it has to introduce new rules. And to tell British Cycling that it needs complete separation from Team Sky. And to insist that public funds are split evenly between male and female athletes, and ensure that the coach for the female riders isn't moonlighting for a private team. 

But it does seem to me that it has gone well beyond it's remit in criticising a private sports team for not being entirely ethical.  

In reply to cb294:

Furthermore, even though this is still a rumour, albeit a plausible one, supposedly they got at least one witness / whistle blower to talk who was ignored by UKADA. Let's see what will happen over the next weeks or months. Forget the report as such, the more interesting question is which thumb screws they can show to the regulatory and anti doping agencies in the UK and beyond. Clean up your act or else...

CB

In reply to cb294:

lottery funding

none

 

 

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Even if not all of these rules were either derived from regulations by the medical bodies or by UKAD, the claim by Sky and British Cycling that they would be whiter than white with respect to such rules jars badly with their actual practise.

Again, if any such promises were part of the reasons why tax/lottery funding was initially granted, the committee has all reason to pick them up on their actual procedures, without any such rules having to be being "officially" in place.

My best guess is that they know exactly what was in the jiffy bag, perhaps not in a manner that would stand in front of a court of law and  (e.g., because a witness would be happy to testify in front of the committee but less happy to incriminate himself), and  who was given the mistery substances, and are now giving the Sky hierarchy a chance to jump before they get pushed. 

Anyway, I believe that economically this is game over for Sky. Which sponsor would want to be associated with a team that is labelled dodgy by a parliament committee? Then again, maybe the current match is not so bad...

CB

It feels like inquisition by other MP-led public committees, the purpose of which seems to be to get the subject, usually a disgraced Executive or senior public figure, to squirm while the MPs compete for the best soundbite that will make the news headlines.  Modern day equivalent of the stocks. 

Not that team Sky are exactly smelling of roses, but just don't see what this is adding. 

In reply to cb294:

Where does CF go next: Rock Racing is no longer in business; Astana has its own struggles; and Movistar prefers its members to have talent as youngsters. 

 

In reply to Max factor: We are missing Sloper to deliver his incisive verdict on posts such as these.

 

In reply to elsewhere:

Don't know. I think UCI could well be pressured by threatening to offer some information to the press or, say, Swiss or US prosecutors. Depends on what they have learned, but I very much doubt other sports grandees want to go down the Fifa and Conmebol route.

CB

In reply to cb294:

The Murdoch empire isn't exactly renowned for sticking to the rules, let alone having the highest ethical standards !

Then again I believe it was pressure from James Murdoch that the team be whiter than white that led to some of the statements for which the team are now being judged against.   Another factor was that they happened to be leading the TDF when LA made his confession, so had to answer all the awkward questions.

So I could see Brailsford being sacked over this, but I can't imagine he'd find it hard to get a job elsewhere in the sport