- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Wiggins riding Arc de TriompheDamning report from MPs slams Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins
A report published today by a parliamentary committee examining doping in sport has given a damning verdict on Team Sky, concluding that it crossed an “ethical line” in using drugs not just for medical need but also to enhance riders’ performance, including ahead of the 2012 Tour de France when Sir Bradley Wiggins became the first Briton to win cycling’s biggest race.
That latter finding has been strongly contested by the British UCI WorldTour outfit, which said in a statement issued this morning that it is “surprised and disappointed” that the committee decided “to present an anonymous and potentially malicious claim in this way, without presenting any evidence or giving us an opportunity to respond,” which it said was “unfair both to the team and to the riders in question.”
In a post to Twitter published shortly after the report's release at midnight, Wiggins said: "I find it so sad that accusations can be made, where people can be accused of things they have never done which are then regarded as facts. I strongly refute the claim that any drug was used without medical need. I hope to have my say in the next few days and put my side across."
Entitled Combatting Doping In Sport, the report released by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee follows an inquiry initially set up in August 2015 in response to articles in The Sunday Times regarding allegations of doping in athletics.
The scope widened to include cycling following the publication by the Fancy Bears hacking group of following the Rio 2016 of information relating to the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) by Wiggins and other riders.
Copies of certificates published by the group showed that Wiggins used the corticosteroid triamcinolone ahead of key races including the 2012 Tour de France. It has been claimed he used the drug to treat his asthma.
However, the report published today casts doubt on that assertion. It states: “From the evidence that has been received by the committee, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France.
“The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power-to-weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance-enhancing properties of this drug during the race.
“This does not constitute a violation of the World Anti-Doping Agency code, but it does cross the ethical line that [Sir] David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the Wada rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.”
Key support riders working for Wiggins at the 2012 Tour de France included Chris Froome, who has won four of the five subsequent editions of the race, Michael Rogers, who has since retired, and Richie Porte, now with BMC Racing. Current Team Sky rider Geraint Thomas missed the race since he was preparing to ride the team pursuit at the London Olympics.
The report highlights written evidence from a whistleblower described as “well respected within the cycling community and [who] held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation,” and who stated their belief that “TUEs were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance.”
Regarding the Jiffy Bag delivered to former Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné containing medicine for Wiggins, the committee notes that there was no verifiable source for the assertion that it contained the legal decongestant, fluimucil, noting that “to many people, the whole story of the package seems implausible, to say the least.”
The package, and the use of TUEs, were the subject of an inquiry by UK Anti-doping (UKAD) last year which concluded that in the absence of medical records kept by Team Sky and British Cycling, it was impossible to determine what was inside it.
But today’s report states that “an allegation was made to UKAD, and has been seen by the committee, that says it was triamcinolone,” which if true, would have constituted an anti-doping rule violation.
“We do not believe there is reliable evidence that it was Fluimucil as Dr Freeman will not now confirm it was and, previously, he was the only reported source of this information,” the report continued.
“The mystery surrounding the delivery of the package, and the extraordinary lengths to which Team Sky went to obtain an easily available drug delivered to them, have also fuelled speculation as to what the package might have contained.
“There remains no documented evidence as to what was in the package. If the package contained triamcinolone, which we know Bradley Wiggins, or his team, wanted him to take around 30 May 2011, and it was indeed taken, then the impacts and consequences on all concerned would have been profound.”
The report says: “Responsibility for the continued doubt on this matter rests on British Cycling, Team Sky and the individuals concerned, all of whom have failed to keep simple records.
“Such failure was unprofessional and inexcusable, and that failure is responsible for the damaging cloud of doubt which continues to hang over this matter.”
The report is highly critical of Brailsford. It says he “must take responsibility for these failures, the regime under which Team Sky riders trained and competed and the damaging scepticism about the legitimacy of his team’s performance and accomplishments.”
Since the committee concluded gathering its evidence, Team Sky has been further rocked by the revelation in December that Froome returned an adverse analytical finding for twice the permitted level of the anti-asthma drug salbutamol at last year’s Vuelta, which he won. That case is still ongoing.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- don simon fbpe 3 sec ago
You disagree with something I say and that makes me a cunt, eh? Intelligent.
- RichT84 3 hours 8 min ago
Came here for comments on the Gloria frameset and got one of the most pedantic arguments on grammar and editorial standards ever instead. Road.cc...
- brooksby 3 hours 17 min ago
If they've built a shiny new bidirectional cycle lane and yet more people are seen cycling on the road then something is wrong with the shiny new...
- brooksby 3 hours 21 min ago
Don't forget angry residents' fear that more children will start riding through the park, sowing chaos and fear or something....
- ktache 6 hours 13 min ago
I watched that video too, not as intriguing as the lever.
- mattsccm 9 hours 16 min ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 10 hours 10 min ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 10 hours 24 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 10 hours 36 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 10 hours 45 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
Add new comment
67 comments
Of course! Leveson 2 distraction. Thank you.
Is there a difference between "supporting performance" and enhancing/improving performance? Supporting could mean that they are taking medication so as not to allow performance to degrade due to asthma for example. Which is kind of the point of a TUE right?
I'd look at it as being a bit like the difference between taking ibuprofen for a headache or other condition as opposed to using it so you can block out the pain of those hard interval sessions.
Whether MPs are 'ethical' or not in their own matters isn't really the point here (and I'd like to believe that many of them still have some morals, I hope that we only hear about the ones that have willingly sold their soul or think they're above the law).
As the article states, the inquiry was set up to look at athletics. With a whistleblower's account, injected triamcinolone, unexplained testosterone purchases, the fabricated story about Fluimucil, the missing laptop & medical records and more, it's hardly surprising that this was of interest to the Select Committee. Unfortunately this level of scrutiny still isn't enough to ensure Richard Freeman and others involved can tell something approximating the truth. And don't forget that BC, the publicly funded governing body, was involved in the affair. It may not really warrant the big headlines but it's still disappointing. And what denial Wiggo issues on twitter is simply irrelevant. I guess we should be relieved he didn't say "I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles".
Will Fotheringham's take in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-dcms-report-bradl...
Has anything new actually come out ? becase at first glance it looks just vailed accusations without any evidance from the report last year.
The whole point of sport is that you have a rule book which sets out in black and white what is allowed and what is not. That is your 'ethical line' right there.
There are a couple of examples of where is does happen - The MPCC for example have their own code above and beyond the official rules.
“well respected within the cycling community and [who] held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation,”
So who is this person - are we ever going to find out, or are they cloaked in immunity making it impossible to validate or refute the claims made?
and who stated their belief that “TUEs were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance.”
This suggests that TUEs were being used on a regular basis for multiple riders, and given that each one must be requested, evaluated and approved by WADA surely means that this is easy to debunk or prove? Have WADA even been contacted to fact-check this?
Far too much 'probably' 'maybe' 'likely' going on and not enough 'here's the proof' for my liking.
^^ THIS.
Yet for each 'maybe' or 'likely', it's another slice in this death from a thousand cuts scenario which is clearly an orchestrated PR attach to bring down Team Sky and discredit Brailsford.
UCI still have questions to answer if they approved questionable TUEs, surely? No evidence of Sky breaking rules, it seems it's the UCI not following the rules to me. All a bit disappointing though, but no news here really.
Waiting for Valbronas or BTBSs nuanced view on this . . .
*Please* don't rattle those particular cages
Don't ever mention my moniker in the same breath as that vile PoS!
What rules were infringed? None.
Team Sky's lawyers have scrutinised the rule book and informed the team's managers about what is or isn't permissible. Dave B is very confident (arrogant) in this position and will not change his stance.
To say that the ethical boundary was crossed is poppycock. You tell me of any sports person who would say 'I won't do that, even though it is within the rules, because it is unethical'. More likely than not, all competitors are applying the same search for the slight edge that they can use without infringing the rules. In some instances, this would be praised but in the UK we have our immoral, corrupt MPs saying it is naughty. It beggars beleif.
http://road.cc/content/news/235285-lotto-soudals-tim-wellens-says-cyclis...
TUEs are to be given only when medically necessary. Wiggins was given his as preventative measures. If that's not violating the letter of the law it certainly violates the spirit of it.
Glad to see that you're a doctor, which gives your diagnosis some gravity.
This.
Oh good, the sun has waded in with its own brand of
Valbronabadly thought out comment. I expect hilarious comments from the local knuckle draggers now...Sky preached that they were going to be whiter than white, no injections, no one who'd been tainted would be employed, etc. etc..
That all turned out to be lies.
Just because it's MPs saying it doesn't mean it isn't true. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
MPs conclude Drugs might be used in cycling shocker!!
Next week, MPs decide if swimming in the sea will make you wet
Since when has ethics come into top sports? I mean really come into it, not just sports people and management paying lip service to it? There are rules, if they're not broken then it is 'pushing the boundaries to the limit'.
I suppose politicians sat in judgement is excusable when funding for these sports comes out of the public purse but they do like a good witch hunt, don't they.
If you apply for a TUE and you don’t actually need the drug you’re applying to take, that isn’t just unethical or ‘pushing the boundaries’.
It’s an anti-doping rule violation.
Skyfall has begun, I can't wait for the team to collapse and Brailsford and Wiggins to be stripped of their knighthoods. The lies are being exposed.
So a bunch of politicians calling other people unethical?
Pot meet Kettle.
Yeah, I'm really struggling with this concept too.
this is a 'select' comittee... not just any old bunch of MPs... they have the power to require experts to give evidence under oath...
You sure about that? What about Irene Rosenfeld of Kraft?
Jus one name and three words; Keith Vaz, rent boys, cocaine.
Is that really your take away from this news story? I feel like there are some other elements to look at.
What I take away from this story is that the politicians are running a distraction story, to distract us from the almighty cockups that they are making. Sad that the media is falling for it. This morning on R4 news, this was the top story. Literally incredible that an athlete not breaking the rules is more important than world events, national events, even more important than the Oscars apparently.
Totally agree with Jim, the hypocrisy of these people is breathtaking.
'These people' being, more specifically, these people:
Damian Collins (Chair) Conservative
Julie Elliott Labour
Paul Farrelly Labour
Simon Hart Conservative
Julian Knight Conservative
Ian C. Lucas Labour
Christian Matheson Labour
Brendan O'Hara Scottish National Party
Rebecca Pow Conservative
Jo Stevens Labour
Giles Watling Conservative
I often have a fairly low opinion of politicians, but it would be good if someone could provide some evidence of precisely how the majority of the particular MPs who penned the report - rather than some politicians, at some times - are guilty of hypocrisy. (Not saying they aren't, just that the 'all politicians are corrupt' thing is a little cheap.)
'These people' being, more specifically, these people:
Damian Collins (Chair) Conservative
Julie Elliott Labour
Paul Farrelly Labour
Simon Hart Conservative
Julian Knight Conservative
Ian C. Lucas Labour
Christian Matheson Labour
Brendan O'Hara Scottish National Party
Rebecca Pow Conservative
Jo Stevens Labour
Giles Watling Conservative
I often have a fairly low opinion of politicians, but it would be good if someone could provide some evidence of precisely how the majority of the particular MPs who penned the report - rather than some politicians, at some times - are guilty of hypocrisy. (Not saying they aren't, just that the 'all politicians are corrupt' thing is a little cheap.)
[/quote]
It is obvious that these politicians have used their position to publicise this report, a damning report if headlines are to be believed. In the vernacular, damning means illegal behaviour with overwhelming, undeniable proof, which is clearly not the case. The only damning thing about this report must have been when they wrote it "Damn, damn, damn, we can't prove a thing."
In this case, I think the accusation of hypocrisy, and quite a few others, is absolutely justified. Why do you think this unproven case, with innuendo, suggestion and rumour, but no proof, is such a huge story? It is clearly distracting from something, and the government's scandalous u-turn on Leveson is a good candidate, on which the media are strangely silent.
This is yet another case of picking on cyclists because they don't have the means to fight back.
The MPs haven't publicised a report - it's their own report. Surely it's no mystery that the predicted dropping of a seven year old inquiry long forgotten about by the public hasn't been front page news for five days; the seven years wait may be the clue never mind the news appearing when all coverage was about the snow. I don't think the results of an 18 month old sports investigation five days later was really necessary... Bizarre deductions. As for your last sentence, christ, you seem to have a victim complex.
That's all before the weird excusing of Wiggins and Sky. Has everyone here invested so much emotionally they can't see the obvious?
Pages