Wiggins/Froome Asthma

RobFowl

I think its reasonable from the meds given to riders that Sky certainly don't have the best Doctors....

MrDiyFan

Is there a suspicion that Geert Leinders had a role in this?

The Guardian article mentions that Leinders gave this PED to riders at Rabobank.If so presumably Team Sky would want his name kept out of it as it would increase their current woes.

RobFowl

MrDiyFan wrote: »

Is there a suspicion that Geert Leinders had a role in this?

The Guardian article mentions that Leinders gave this PED to riders at Rabobank.If so presumably Team Sky would want his name kept out of it as it would increase their current woes.

Definitely not, Dr Leinders was just paid to weight the riders.

harringtonp

Andy Magic wrote: »

Is there anywhere that has the exact date he was injected in 2013? I am interested to see if it's more or less than 2 weeks before the individual time trial at the Giro. I see he was injected 13 days before the ITT at the 2012 Tour De France, which he won.
All I can find is this:

Presumed that these were referenced somewhere in the 25+ pages on this thread given that they are the core of the discussion and not hard to find. Perhaps not..

Sandwell

This looks worse, if anything, for Sky and Wiggins than the TUE story. How many times does Brailsford get caught lying in one article? That's before you even consider the inherent dodginess of getting an employee to ferry a package from the UK to France. If it was legit you'd surely just use FedEx?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3825848/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-package-delivered-Team-Sky-Sportsmail-investigation.html

terrydel

Sandwell wrote: »

This looks worse, if anything, for Sky and Wiggins than the TUE story. How many times does Brailsford get caught lying in one article? That's before you even consider the inherent dodginess of getting an employee to ferry a package from the UK to France. If it was legit you'd surely just use FedEx?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3825848/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-package-delivered-Team-Sky-Sportsmail-investigation.html

Staggering. The level of bull**** coming from this complete fraud of a team now is simply laughable.
Their credibility is completely and utterly shattered.
I love seeing the veneer of bull**** and spin the envelopes the snake oil salesman that is Brailsford, torn away.
Wiggins should hand back his tour victory, it means absolutely nothing now.

Leroy42

So the story goes that a suspicious package was delivery after the final stage of Dauphine Libere and that it is then suggested that Wiggins went in to the medical room after the podium.

Brailsford seems adamant that the bus had left before the end of the media duties etc.

Lot of suspicion but little in the way of actual evidence. Even if the bus had stayed that shows nothing. It doesn't show what was in the package, and even if it was illegal, it doesn't prove that it was either for Wiggo ir that it was administered to him.

MPFGLB

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the story goes that a suspicious package was delivery after the final stage of Dauphine Libere and that it is then suggested that Wiggins went in to the medical room after the podium.

Brailsford seems adamant that the bus had left before the end of the media duties etc.

Lot of suspicion but little in the way of actual evidence. Even if the bus had stayed that shows nothing. It doesn't show what was in the package, and even if it was illegal, it doesn't prove that it was either for Wiggo ir that it was administered to him.

+!

Ridiculous innuendo and suggestion by the Dialy Mail of all people

so a team has a package delivered during a race and a rider goes down the back of the bus is gulity

Guess some people just want a rope to do the hanging. I'd prefer to waiit for more sunstntial evidence of wrong doing in this instance


As for Brailsford lying...He shoots his mouth off and does not check facts . He is also arrogant but tell me is he any different to any politician ??

I guess for some people SKY are guilty until proven innocent...

timmy_mallet

MPFGLB wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the story goes that a suspicious package was delivery after the final stage of Dauphine Libere and that it is then suggested that Wiggins went in to the medical room after the podium.

Brailsford seems adamant that the bus had left before the end of the media duties etc.

Lot of suspicion but little in the way of actual evidence. Even if the bus had stayed that shows nothing. It doesn't show what was in the package, and even if it was illegal, it doesn't prove that it was either for Wiggo ir that it was administered to him.

+!

Ridiculous innuendo and suggestion by the Dialy Mail of all people

so a team has a package delivered during a race and a rider goes down the back of the bus is gulity

Guess some people just want a rope to do the hanging. I'd prefer to waiit for more sunstntial evidence of wrong doing in this instance


As for Brailsford lying...He shoots his mouth off and does not check facts . He is also arrogant but tell me is he any different to any politician ??

I guess for some people SKY are guilty until proven innocent...

Brailsford lied his way through that stuff with Lawton. He lied his way through the interview about TUEs/Wiggins. Why are people willing to defend this guy and his team (funded by Murdoch remember!). It's bizarre. They are liars at the very minimum and have no credibility left.

ThisRegard

MPFGLB wrote: »

He is also arrogant but tell me is he any different to any politician ??

Why the comparison with a politician?

MPFGLB

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Brailsford lied his way through that stuff with Lawton. He lied his way through the interview about TUEs/Wiggins. Why are people willing to defend this guy and his team (funded by Murdoch remember!). It's bizarre. They are liars at the very minimum and have no credibility left.

THat is exagerration ...He did not lie his way through everything

Plus no one is defending a team......I am talking about jumping to conclusion without evidence

As for SKY's credibility I see it as no different from Astana or Katusha or Tinkoff...Do you for one minute not think they have used TUES at strategic times, use steroids out of competeton or tell lies in interviews? ( Contador has never told a word of the truth about his condition in an inerview)

There are issues with SKY but as yet there is no evidence that any rules have been broken. I prefer to wait befroe condemning a whole team. As for MUrdoch sponsoring the team well you will need to give up cycling as Bahrain Team is worse

There seems to be a purist view that SKY must stand or fall on every little point while ignoring every other team

But if SKY are not fit to be in the peloton then neither are most of the others...


Gosh cycling must be above all standards ...usually insisted on by the same people who watch horse racing, rugby , football, tennis & GAA where there is evidence of all kinds of substance misuse yet never see these people who condem SKY calling any of these a disgrace. Seems pretty hypocritical to me

I want balance I don't want cycling to only get it in the neck ...And not for an issue when the rules were followed

MPFGLB

ThisRegard wrote: »

Why the comparison with a politician?

Becasue Brailsford is first and foremost in these type of interviews a politician . He is putting forward a policy, view or status.

timmy_mallet

MPFGLB wrote: »

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Brailsford lied his way through that stuff with Lawton. He lied his way through the interview about TUEs/Wiggins. Why are people willing to defend this guy and his team (funded by Murdoch remember!). It's bizarre. They are liars at the very minimum and have no credibility left.

THat is exagerration ...He did not lie his way through everything

Plus no one is defending a team......I am talking about jumping to conclusion without evidence

As for SKY's credibility I see it as no different from Astana or Katusha or Tinkoff...Do you for one minute not think they have used TUES at strategic times, use steroids out of competeton or tell lies in interviews? ( Contador has never told a word of the truth about his condition in an inerview)

There are issues with SKY but as yet there is no evidence that any rules have been broken. I prefer to wait befroe condemning a whole team. As for MUrdoch sponsoring the team well you will need to give up cycling as Bahrain Team is worse

There seems to be a purist view that SKY must stand or fall on every little point while ignoring every other team

But if SKY are not fit to be in the peloton then neither are most of the others...


Gosh cycling must be above all standards ...usually insisted on by the same people who watch horse racing, rugby , football, tennis & GAA where there is evidence of all kinds of substance misuse yet never see these people who condem SKY calling any of these a disgrace. Seems pretty hypocritical to me

I want balance I don't want cycling to only get it in the neck ...And not for an issue when the rules were followed

The pursuit of Sky is plain and simple, if a team says they are going to do things differently, and then start winning all the races (against the dopers remember, the teams you mention) a logical person would think, "hold on a minute" - hence...
Given cycling's past, is it likely that they are fully clean? I would suggest it's illogical to think the are.
Evidence of rule breaking? Preventative TUEs are quite clearly rule breaking. And what would stop a TUE taker from doulbing down during the race and when failing a control say "well, i have a TUE..."?
Nobody is saying they are not fit to be in the peleton, they're high and mighty, very British, stance is crumbling around them. Personally I don't care if they are the same as the rest, in the grey area of doping... Just don't pretend to us that you aren't, and get on with it.

Leroy42

timmy_mallet wrote: »

The pursuit of Sky is plain and simple, if a team says they are going to do things differently, and then start winning all the races (against the dopers remember, the teams you mention) a logical person would think, "hold on a minute" - hence...
Given cycling's past, is it likely that they are fully clean? I would suggest it's illogical to think the are.
Evidence of rule breaking? Preventative TUEs are quite clearly rule breaking. And what would stop a TUE taker from doulbing down during the race and when failing a control say "well, i have a TUE..."?
Nobody is saying they are not fit to be in the peleton, they're high and mighty, very British, stance is crumbling around them. Personally I don't care if they are the same as the rest, in the grey area of doping... Just don't pretend to us that you aren't, and get on with it.

Quite clearly they are not.

terrydel

MPFGLB wrote: »

+!

Ridiculous innuendo and suggestion by the Dialy Mail of all people

so a team has a package delivered during a race and a rider goes down the back of the bus is gulity

Guess some people just want a rope to do the hanging. I'd prefer to waiit for more sunstntial evidence of wrong doing in this instance


As for Brailsford lying...He shoots his mouth off and does not check facts . He is also arrogant but tell me is he any different to any politician ??

I guess for some people SKY are guilty until proven innocent...

Whereas for you they are whiter than white.

timmy_mallet

Leroy42 wrote: »

timmy_mallet wrote: »

The pursuit of Sky is plain and simple, if a team says they are going to do things differently, and then start winning all the races (against the dopers remember, the teams you mention) a logical person would think, "hold on a minute" - hence...
Given cycling's past, is it likely that they are fully clean? I would suggest it's illogical to think the are.
Evidence of rule breaking? Preventative TUEs are quite clearly rule breaking. And what would stop a TUE taker from doulbing down during the race and when failing a control say "well, i have a TUE..."?
Nobody is saying they are not fit to be in the peleton, they're high and mighty, very British, stance is crumbling around them. Personally I don't care if they are the same as the rest, in the grey area of doping... Just don't pretend to us that you aren't, and get on with it.

Quite clearly they are not.

They are. Still wondering why 3 weeks later WADA or UCI have failed to comment.

MPFGLB

terrydel wrote: »

Whereas for you they are whiter than white.

I didn't say that and you know it

You seem to be incapabale of a nuanced argument so please ignore my posts

zurbfoundation

just read this thread - i remember when insinuating anything about TS or GB riders in general got you a ban from this forum - much different story now

Leroy42

timmy_mallet wrote: »

They are. Still wondering why 3 weeks later WADA or UCI have failed to comment.

The TUE's were accepted by both Wada and UCI so not sure why you are saying that.

If they were rule breaking Wiggo would already been banned.

Are you confusing unethical with unlawful?

Leroy42

terrydel wrote: »

Whereas for you they are whiter than white.

Nobody is saying that, certainly not me, but the article in question does nothing but raise unsupported innuendo.

There was a package, but we are not sure what was in it.

The bus left after they said it did, although we can't be sure exactly when it left apart from a video showing Wiggo in front of it in civvies (so clearly after the stage but not definitive)

Whatever was in the package was injected into Wiggo by the team doc on the bus. We don't know what was in it, we can't be sure the bus or the doc was there and even if all this can be shown to be true, that is a big step to claiming that this proves Wiggo was given an illegal dope injection.

Sandwell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The TUE's were accepted by both Wada and UCI so not sure why you are saying that.

If they were rule breaking Wiggo would already been banned.

Are you confusing unethical with unlawful?

By Sky's self-declared standards it doesn't matter whether the TUEs were unethical or unlawful. They can't have it both ways. You can't be the face of clean cycling yet push the boundaries of illegality to give your riders an edge. You can't claim to be transparent while blatantly lying to journalists.

Leroy42

Sandwell wrote: »

By Sky's self-declared standards it doesn't matter whether the TUEs were unethical or unlawful. They can't have it both ways. You can't be the face of clean cycling yet push the boundaries of illegality to give your riders an edge. You can't claim to be transparent while blatantly lying to journalists.

Sky has always said they would operate within the rules, they always claimed they would push up to the barrier but not beyond.

That is exactly what they have done here. They saw a loophole and used it, a loophole that was open to everyone else and was not breaking any rules.

Wiggo did not fail a dope test, did not take anything illegal so they are quite entitled to remain the 'face' of of clean cycling (although I doubt they ever used that terminology).

Don't get me wrong, they are shady and far from the shining light some people would have you believe, but demonising them is not correct either.

Sandwell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, they are shady and far from the shining light some people would have you believe, but demonising them is not correct either.

Nobody would be demonising them if they hadn't had the blatant hypocrisy to declare themselves as the very shining light that you mention. They've made the rope for their own necks here. I'm fully sure that other teams are using the same loopholes to gain an advantage but they haven't been feeding us the marginal gains nonsense to explain their success.

RobFowl

One really important point

There is a lot if comment all over social media saying preventative TUEs are not allowed, THIS IS NOT TRUE

Tues are allowed to treat or control illness on condittions which affect health or performances up to normal levels.

There ia no bar anywhere on prevention and indeed in asthma it is a key part of good medical care.

MPFGLB

Sandwell wrote: »

By Sky's self-declared standards it doesn't matter whether the TUEs were unethical or unlawful. They can't have it both ways. You can't be the face of clean cycling yet push the boundaries of illegality to give your riders an edge. You can't claim to be transparent while blatantly lying to journalists.

This is a fair commnet about SKY's approach that is part of why they are in the firing line

But from here to accusations of doping (whch some are making) is a far jump

Dont like SKY, question their ethcis & their approach to self promotion but do not accuse them of illegal doping based on some neferious package story without proof

mcgratheoin

RobFowl wrote: »

One really important point

There is a lot if comment all over social media saying preventative TUEs are not allowed, THIS IS NOT TRUE

Just as a further clarification on this important point, and possibly why people are getting a bit confused, the TUE criteria in the UCI's WADA code says the following

A Therapeutic Use Exemption will be granted only in strict accordance with the following criteria:
1. The Rider should submit an application for a TUE on a form provided by the UCI no less than 21 (twenty-one) days before he needs the approval.

Comment: the Rider must obtain the TUE prior to the Use, Possession or administration of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. Without prejudice to the special rules for inhaled beta-2 agonists (article 79) and glucocorticosteroids (article 80), a TUE can be granted retroactively in exceptional circumstances only, as is laid down under paragraph 6 of this article.

2. The Rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition.
3. The therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. The Use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase “low-normal” levels of any endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable therapeutic intervention.
4. There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
5. The necessity for the use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method cannot be a consequence, wholly or in part, of prior non-therapeutic Use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
6. An application for a TUE will not be considered for retroactive approval except in cases where:

a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary, or
b. Due to exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or opportunity for a Rider to submit, or the TUEC to consider, the application.

Where people are suggesting that Wiggins broke the rules is in not following the criteria laid out in 2, 3 and 4 above, namely

• Corticosteroids as an asthma/allergy treatment have a more reasonable therapeutic alternative - Breach of criteria 4
• Corticosteroids produce additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following treatment for asthma/allergies. - Breach of criteria 3
• Non-treatment with corticosteroids would not result in a significant impairment to health of an athlete. Breach of criteria 2

As RobFowl mentions, there is no bar anywhere on prevention and indeed in asthma it is a key part of good medical care. To take Calum Skinner as an example, he can show through his medical history that he has had significant asthma problems since age 5 and therefore his TUEs are entirely appropriate and he is an example of what the system is designed for.

timmy_mallet

To clarify what i said, and to second(ish) what mcgratehoin is saying... Wiggins applied for a TUE and took the dope for a condition which he might have during the tour, if the weather was warm and if the helicopter made the pollen worse, etc.... He didn't take it because he had something, he took it because he might have something, i.e. illegal.

pelevin

This package story - haven't given it the deepest of looks but anyway . . . otoh it seems to have quickly become another pretty big media event but short of some real substance, & I don't think were it involving other teams it'd have made it to be much of a story. It's in the light of the TUE Fancy Bear stuff that has opened the door to it getting & perhaps warranting such focus. On thother hand though depite the lack of hard evidence it does have a genuine stench about it - a team member coming from the UK to France to deliver some medical package. How specialised a substance was it that France was out of stock?

And what's certainly adding to it is Brailsford's response & he seems to really lack in the covering his ass department once real heat has started to come on. Comes out with stuff about Wiggins & the bus that doesn't seem to add up, asks the journalist is he tapping his phone!!(very weird), says the package was for Emma Pooley which quickly fails to add up. I think his credibility was already pretty much shot & this seems to be a continuation of that rapid fall from grace.

terrydel

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sky has always said they would operate within the rules, they always claimed they would push up to the barrier but not beyond.

That is exactly what they have done here. They saw a loophole and used it, a loophole that was open to everyone else and was not breaking any rules.

Wiggo did not fail a dope test, did not take anything illegal so they are quite entitled to remain the 'face' of of clean cycling (although I doubt they ever used that terminology).

Don't get me wrong, they are shady and far from the shining light some people would have you believe, but demonising them is not correct either.

So you've forgotten where they said they would pull any rider needing a TUE (which has now become we will use tue's as cynically as possible)?
They haven't always said they'd push to the barrier and not beyond, that's their recent mantra having been collared.

timmy_mallet

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wiggo did not fail a dope test, .

Where have we heard that before?