Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Sky/British Cycling
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
pinot, Bardot, Quintana... Even Froome Don't think anyone has accused them, let alone proved they are dopers
Forgive me but isn't that rowing back a bit about it being a proven very effective potent performance enhancer - I've read quotes from doctors including ones criticising the treatment as OTT arguing it was unlikely to be performance enhancing because of its catabolic effect.
Is it not just possible he went to the doctor and said I don't want any chance of this health problem ruining my race - the doctor then prescribes a medicine which is a bit over the top by normal standards but which can pretty much guarantee to put a lid on the problem for 3 weeks. Everything about his preparation was extreme - the losing weight, the training at altitude etc - this could easily be explained by Sky wanting to control as many controllables as possible and if a team Dr and the guy who issued TUEs were happy with it why would Wiggins not be. We know he's very much all or nothing so if he was told this was within the rules and the most effective cure why wouldn't he take it, I probably would have myself.
Yes of course it may also be that they thought they were getting an advantage and that is why they did it but it's one of those for which there is at least a reasonable legitimate explanation imo.
And you think he gets sick the same time just before grand tours over 3 years, no when else, then going on the never telling anyone in his book he has allergy problems and also saying "no needle" policy. It's embarrassing really to try defend these points
I don't believe he could be sick, and then take a drug to contain it for 3 weeks and operate at that level with people like Rasmussen, Hamilton and millar clearly saying what effect it has on you within days
We know several doctors have since been removed from the system and those have been dodgy before
If Sky want to control as many variables as possible can you explain why there are so many contradictions and then why they train somewhere where he is vulnerable to such severe allergies? Although I guess it follows him at the same time of year in various parts of the world.....
That's the problem with sweeping statements like "the last 30 years" easy to pick holes in...
... lots of athletes have been told take the drugs or you are off the team ( Paul Kimmage and several East German sprinters {see real examples})
You want to win the TdF ? You need to take "preparation X" then. Fact or fiction ?
Last years? With Valverde (2 year ban for doping) on it? Or 2014, with Nibali, riding for Astana? Astana, so known for their pure-as-the-driven-snow history? What was it, 5 Astana positives that year? Surely we're not going to contest Rodriguez, after reminding you he rides for Katusha, for goodness sake?
i would say this years is the first in 30 years where there isn't significant controversy, but there have been rumours about Quintana - rumours are not proof, but only time will tell. You been at the rose-tinted glasses again?
I'm with Flyaway on this one.... no proof, but the odds are looking less healthy than Wiggins just before a grand tour on a dusty day with a high pollen count...
I suspect that it will eventually prove true that Sky have broken no 'rules', but have morally lost the plot.... and along with that, they will lose a lot of their fan base... and possibly a rider or two... some under a cloud, some out of disgust...
I am also with Flyaway in not caring that much about football cheating, but caring considerably about triathlon, and particularly age group drug use.... its OUR sport built on health and wellbeing, with a wonderful reputation for fun, commitment and achievement of potential... drugs will destroy the golden goose if we allow them too... so its OUR responsibility to demand better of athletes, organisers, and governing bodies.
I agree it's a public relations disaster and must impact on the decisions of businesses looking at getting involved in sponsoring cycling in the future. I still think though you can explain the timing of him taking this medicine as him trying to go that extra step to ensure his allergies weren't an issue in his main races. I know doctors say the treatment is disproportionate for someone able to win races without it earlier in the year but if it offered as close to certainty those issues could be forgotten about for the 3 weeks I could understand a rider taking that medicine for that reason rather than supposed performance enhancing properties.
Anyway here is an alternative take on it some of you may enjoy if you haven't seen it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8o7RNL-mHI
Just let everyone dope if they want to and carry on as we have for forever, at least we get rid of the controversy and constant theorising over each winner of any grand tour.
To anyone not overly interested in the sport it's assumed that everyone dopes and that perception has stuck and I can't see that changing ever again.
Doping to get to Kona is a cheaper/quicker alternative to going down the legacy route for people who are not quite good enough to qualify but desperately want to go there, can see why people would take that route. As long as they only dope to get there and once qualified, stay clean 'til race day no one will ever know, assuming they are clever and pick a qualifier late in the previous season.
Not entirely sure what any of this has to do with football?
Fundamentally disagree Symes.... we need a constant stream of youngsters coming into triathlon, and a reputation for doping will only encourage parents, schools, and local amenities to look towards other sports.... we have a window of opportunity as our sport reaches maturity to stop this right now... or we can sweep it under the carpet and pretend it will have no long term implications.
I'm saying let all pro cyclists dope if they want, not in tri, hence the grand tour comment.
Agree with trying to keep the grassroots clean and encourage were possible, but, that it is very much an option for those who want to KQ but can't to get there by other means.
yep... fair enough... but on the KQ bit, we need to make it a non-option....
automatic testing for all KQ athletes at the time of qualification....advice and education being much more prevalent, even at non WTC events.... when did you last see a conspicuous BT presence outside of refs and race observer at events other than a small number of huge national ones?.... testing for all overall winners of BT sanctioned events with more than 400 entrants.... testing for all podium places at nationals, regionals, and major races... testing for everyone who gets an age group place on team GB.... even random across the field at IM events....
just make it bloody hard for anyone to get away with it....
All that would be great MC, but all that would be expensive, and end up going on to race entry fees. It would make triathlon the first sport to have such extensive testing of amateurs, and unfortunately it probably needs some high profile cases to emerge before that's going to happen. Even pro triathlon probably isn't high profile enough unless the Brownlees failed a test or they had another Kona winner DQ'd for doping.
Sadly I think the WTC are more interested in the $$$, not sure we'll ever see random testing at IM, if they wanted people to play fair they'd do something more about the wholly obvious draft-fest at some races - Austria was a joke, not where I was obviously, there were only about 10 of us spread across a mile but on the part of the lap where the front end of the race goes the opposite direction it was a peleton.
I think everyone competeting for the country should have the bio passport done on a routine basis.
Testing done much more often and no excuses about missed tests. They need to scare people into not doping. As we have seen micro doping works and generally people can cycle drugs and avoid them through missing tests
I'm only a runner and not a triathlete so don't really know what goes on in the tri world.
Personally I don't really care if other people are doping in the races I run. I don't think there is a doping problem in the amatuer running world but I could be wrong. My guess is there isn't a big enough issue to warrant doing much about it at an amatuer level.
The issue for some people is the aim to qualify for the world championships in Hawaii. If they are clean and finish 4th in the age group and miss out and then find that one of the people who qualified ahead of them was suspected of doping and did a time close to the time professionals are doing they might be a tad pissed off.
Generally in running races I couldn't give a flying whatever either, same with the tri world really as I'm nowhere near qualifying standard and without a course of EPO never will be, but I can see why good athletes would be upset.
If Sky are dodgy then what about the GB track team under Brailsford ? Is it likely he decided to rubbish his reputation by cheating on the road ? Have we heard any doping stories about any of our Track champions ? I don't think so.
Why you'd want to throw your reputation away just to make it on the road makes no sense to me. Wiggins is clean and Brailsford is too.
With triathlon - there are probably cheaper ways to cheat - get in a pack on the bike and that'll give you a better bike split without the expense of any drugs.
It may well be cleaner or at least many more people are skipping and getting around testers.
As for GB cycling team, there's huge speculation about them with riders from other countries talking about the performance (I'm on my phone I can't find a link but sure it was a German rider) about traditionally how form carries through the year and how GB just appear out of nowhere and win despite not being competitive not long before hand, physiologically doesn't add up, and I then heard an argument stating how hey would be trying to peak for the event, not like everyone else is doing that???!!! He was stating just how they are that much better and then most of them are on asthma meds or have TUEs.
As for drugs in sport. 100% people cheat at all levels, we all heard that 18 year old
Cyclist done for EPO. There's more people with more money and living more like full time athletes it's bound to happen.
I've won races and lost others. I'd be fuming if the field was unfair. I can't say I've been in an event where I think someone has beaten me and cheated as the times are not outrageous, then again there's people that might be cheating and I would still beat and they might think that about me or whatever.
I still think they need to drugs test at all events in the U.K. Not every one I mean just like all big 10kms or HMs etc
I'm sure this has been discussed before and I know I may get shot down in flames (and I am writing this as someone who has suffered from asthma in the past).
However, is there an argument for stopping TUEs altogether? So if an athlete has asthma, for example, and requires a drug to compete at their optimum performance via a TUE, then they should suck it up and either a) not compete or b) compete to the best of their ability without the drug?
By the way, loved the spanish utube thing Popsider, so funny to see what the rest of the world thinks of us, naive Brits who believed all the marginal gains guff while all the time Sky & British Cycling(?) were quietly, legally doping away.
I'm sure there are teams just as clean as Sky are - and some that shall remain nameless but have had riders busted for doping fairly often.
Track cycling is pretty controllable - its a lot easier to predict than road cycling - and it can give good returns for its money. We've had the Manchester Velodrome for years now and trained a huge amount of athletes. Was it France that didnt have a national training centre until recently ?
Of course other nations will be saying things - that's natural - but c'mon. How many athletes have gone through the track programme and there's been no talk of doping ? Its the best secret since the lunar landings being staged....
And it is at all levels - paralympic as well. Women and men. Seniors and Juniors. GB have spent a lot of money to get those medals. And not one rider has spilt the beans...
Look at US Postal and how many of their ex riders got busted for doping just after leaving the team.
I don't know how much dope testing there is in UK amateur athletics, but how much do dope tests cost- and would you even pick up people who have trained on drugs and gone clear for the races ?
senidM, I agree it's not going to happen. But is there not an argument at least that if an athlete needs drugs to compete due to some illness (legally, via a TUE), then that in itself is introducing unfairness into the system? So, if all other things are equal between two athletes except Athlete A needs a TUE due to asthma and Athlete B does not, could that be described as being unfair to Athlete B? And why stop at TUEs for illnesses - what about levelling the playing field around length of legs, or an athlete's weight?
Is it at least partly dependent on what the point of elite sport is? Is part of the point of elite sport to see who is "naturally" the best at something?
Big_G that is a very nice point! and I don't disagree!
However should diabetics and asthmatics etc be classed as Para athletes? Should there be a grading/handicap system in place for athletes with "health issues" like they have at the Paralymics?
All very messy, complicated and difficult to be fair!
Stands back to watch the fireworks
Cougie, recent estimates are around $200 per urine test, and a bit more for a subsequent blood test if needed... so would be under £2 per entrant if fully funded by race fees for a decent sized event that tested 10 or so people... hardly earth shattering
I was watching the full Kona coverage last weekend, as the male pros are on the leaving Waikoloa you can see groups of 50-60 riders going the other way, then big gaps, it's groups together not riders spaced out at 12m. its fair for draft busters to turn a bling eye in the first 10-20 miles but this was 40-45 miles in.
Agree it's probably $$$ that's probably the factor with WTC.
It's not that messy - I don't think many people think asthmatics, short sighted people, diabetics etc shouldn't be able to compete in sport with the aid of medical science to put them on a level playing field. Should we all have to run barefoot and naked because that is "natural" - what about orthotics - there are lots of things that could be classed as artificial aids to allow people to compete better with others and I can't see what would be gained from banning them - asthma meds are in that category.
Just to reignite this thread for a bit of a laugh......regarding the mystery package that was delivered to Bradley Wiggins I now get the impression that Dave Brailsford is almost distancing himself from the incident in that it happened without his knowledge and maybe even he is wondering what was in the package.....???
It's not going away! I'll be gutted if Wiggins was involved in anything dodgy, still don't believe he was though...
Of course he was. There are degrees of dodgy (if it was testosterone, that's arguably worse than if it really was fluimucil* without the required prescription, which was then injected IV with no TUE) but either way, he's broken anti doping laws. You don't get a parcel personally couriered if it's all above board. And Froome is as clean as a chimney sweep brush.
Anyone still believe in marginal gains, and the Tooth Fairy?
* hahaha. I highly doubt it was
I've obviously missed all the evidence against Froome, other than circumstantially being on the same team as Wiggins.
Sky/British Cycling's paranoia over the years about secrecy has hit them here - when they were developing track bikes everything was kept closely guarded so that other teams couldn't copy them. Quite possibly that same paranoia led them to use a courier rather than have a team medic being spotted popping into the local pharmacy. Problem is, that same secrecy just makes them look guilty now, whether they are or not. If they'd come clean in the first place they might have stood a chance of being believed, whatever they say now just looks like a cover-up.