Anyone got any thoughts on this? Was it a sham all along and were other nations (e.g Australia, France to name but two) correct to be suspicious during the Olympics games over the last couple of decades? Technically it seems they have done nothing to break the rules, but at the end of the day is Great Britain no worse now than the Russians in this regard and should we be banned? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43310183 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43306210 Was it all just too good to be true at the time?
Rules is rules. Competitive sport is a business now and they'll bend the rules as much as possible. Whether there was intentional bending in this case or not we'll probably never know but to be fair if you want to go faster on the roads sell your bike and get a car. Russia was blatant cheating rather than rule bending so it's a different league imho. To be honest unless the authorities enforce a blanket black and white ban they can't really complain.
Which is fine if that's what Wiggins and Brailsford had said. They aren't even admitting bending the rules. They have knighthoods to protect, after all. Instead they are hiding behind a smokescreen of asthma, stolen laptops and non-existent record keeping.
Well it seems Sky have just been caught out trying to as they say in football "pushing rules to the edge to gain any advantage " Sometimes people aren't all they seem - particularly in sport.
We watch sport of all types where athletes are medicated to the line. Once a footballer has a serious injury the chances are that often the rest of their career will be facilitated through the careful use of anti-inflammatories and pain-killers. No one is simply a 'pure' athlete without intervention. I think clearly the TUE system has been stretched to the point where it needs to be abandoned, but I find the report very unsatisfactory. Wiggins and others are being accused with sketchy evidence, innuendo and seemingly without the right to reply. It needs to spot on to justify the career trashing of brilliant athletes like Wiggins. Cycling has the most full on drugs testing and the picture appears to be much better than it was. Cycling in Britain is growing massively and has become a big participation sport for youngsters. So it needs to be clean, something which is always gong to be a challenge given the excessive demands of winning at the highest level.
As I'm not a fan of cycling I'm not particularly fussed about the topic. But I did think that there must be bigger issues for a parliamentary committee to investigate than this. I suppose library closures or museum funding or whatever else is in their remit is much less sexy and not as likely to get the committee on the front of the papers.
Would you also then agree that Watford "pushed the rules to the edge to gain an advantage" in the first season under the Pozzo regime? I think we all thought there was nothing wrong with that as we didn't break the rules on foreign loan players but enjoyed the benefit of the loophole while we could.
Exactly. They earn their extra beans based on their reputation and if I was them I'd seriously consider legal action. Defamation of character?
Is there any parliamentary protection for the DCMS that would prevent it from being sued? Any constitutional experts? In any case the DCMS is offering opinion rather than fact - they can't sue because the DCMS says they crossed an ethical line. That's an opinion and they were up to the edge of it at least. They can't sue that 'the package' explanation is described as unsatisfactory - it is, without necessarily being that big a deal. I'm sure there is some lawyering up though. They also can't make the DCMS reveal its source of the accusation that Team Sky prepared the team with triamcinolone. Maybe because this was from a current rider, who knows, but it's a poor sort of justice. In any case if riders other than Wiggins (who had the exemption) were using it why didn't it show up in routine doping checks? The clearest evidence we have is that Piers Morgan has thunderously accused Wiggins of cheating, so feel free to call it BS until more is revealed.
It's not the DCMS (perhaps that should now be the DDCMS), it's the parliamentary select committee on digital, culture, media and sport (whose job, among other things, is to scrutinise the DCMS). Yes, its report, and the evidence given to it, are covered by parliamentary privilege.
Keighley's answered the main point. But I think a wider debate really should be had about how these select committees work. They seem to be actively trying to ape their counterparts in the US Congress by grandstanding and summoning all sorts of people to give evidence before them. Half the time its a bunch of ragtag backbench MPs doing the questioning. Rarely do any of them have any real mastery of their brief. Often their only specialist subject is how to make a soundbite zing for the 6 o'clock news. I'm comfortable with them examining the work of ministers and the government in general, even if that means asking questions of the civil servants too sometimes. That's their traditional role. But this quasi-judicial, kangeroo court type approach they've been moving towards in recent years is dodgy. Particularly as there appear to be no real rules of evidence and they act under the shield of Parliamentary privilege. Though I’m not keen on this cycling one, the height of ridiculousness was Keith Vaz holding court (quite literally sometimes) hauling senior police officers over the coals for things that would have been better dealt with in actual courts. Like he's a paragon of virtue...
To a degree you are right. However Team Sky was launched to an ethical fanfare, not employing anyone who had any connection with a dirty team, promising in effect to be whiter than white. Wiggins himself wrote in his autobiography (which he now effectively disowns as being ghost written on a couple of days' interview that we was 'incredibly well' in 2012. He also states explicitly that he never had any injections of medication. This is demonstrably untrue. Team Sky and by association British Cycling (I have it on good authority that Shane Sutton is a horrible piece of work btw) should not have played this 'morality' card if they were going to behave just like any other pro cycling team and bend the rules to within an inch of their life. Added to which is the question of the mysterious package courriered personally by a Btritish Cycling wonk to Wiggins during the Dauphiné Liberé. The claim it was a mild anti asthma preparation allowed to be used in competition with a TUE. Unfortunately they could have purchased this at a local chemist without prescription. If it was triamcinolone - this is basically the unproven conclusion of most observers - then this is banned in competition, TUE or no. If it was, 2 year ban at least, titles stripped. A lot of modfather cheerleaders are wilfully ignoring things in the same way as Lance Armstrong had the cancer survivors denouncing his critics, because he is a Brit icon and a geezer.
Bradley "the fastest mod on two wheels" Wiggins is the biggest **** in sport. I am taking immense pleasure in witnessing his inexorable downfall. He can take his sideburns, his hideously skinny little arms and his dodgy drugs and **** right off.
It was ever thus with public positionings based on an ethical platform. One example of this was John Major's Back to Basics policy, written between/whilst shagging the fragrant Ms Currie. They always come back to bite you in the @rse. As Edwina did to him. Allegedly.
Not sure if this is right place to post this but Froome’s one man breakaway today was legendary. Not Fessi legendary but the real thing. I would think the greatest move in cycling in a generation. Merckx may have done something similar. I have never seen anything like it in any sport. Forza Froome!
Well clearly the cycling fans don't like if you dare suggest there are any doubts over Froome's performance.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44258030 Surely they aren't that naive or surprised people still ask questions....
I've had longer rallies than some of our batsman have innings! A lot of people in other sports will be having a wry smile at the tarnished reputation of British Cycling. Some of their hierarchy have made a mint with consultancy positions and,in some cases,permanent jobs,on the back of their success. I'm not sure many have ever trusted cycling,whatever flag they race under. However the suspicious eye can be cast far and wide and there are a few competitors at Roland Garros that have dubious reputations.
