Wiggins hits back: "I’d have more rights if I’d murdered someone"

When you watch Brad being interviewed, looking at him it looks to me that even his hair is lying ! 

I don't think Wiggins has an ethical case to answer here.

He had a medical condition.

There was a list of approved treatments for that condition.

He took one of the approved treatments.

'Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? '

quagmire with unethical conduct? He's failed a drugs test. Sorry, he's had an 'adverse analytical finding'.

The optimist in me wants to belive that this is a rather harsh smear campaign designed to discredit the good name of British Cycling, Team Sky and its exhalted riders, however the realist in me is slowly accepting that optimism is an outdated concept within elite cycling. What worries me is Froome and Wiggins both sound like Lance Armstrong nowadays citing smears and conspiracies galore. Rewind 10 years to some of his interviews and they all provide carbon copy soundbites in their collective defence. 

I feel we were all naive to think the Lance Amstrong expose would signify elite cycling's re-birth. The sad fact remains that super-human performance within endurance sports is clearly dependent on marginal gains and it seems most marginal gains remain either illegal, borderline illegal or in Skys case, unethical.

When the Bradley Wiggins story first broke last year, I remember Chris Froome's Stoic silence in relation to Sir Bradley and Sir David. I found that strange considering both men had played pivotal roles in Froome's development. I took Froome's silence to symbolise a 'clean athletes' stance on unethical behaviour within the team and a chance to distance himself from the furore surrounding team Sky.

Fast forward 12-months and now Froome is tripping over himself to support Brailsford, Sky and the team in general. Is that anything to do with Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? who knows. I find the volt face intriguing. 

No matter how much cycling tries to repair itself, its image is continually tarnished by individual transgressions of ethics. Has cycling really moved on from the EPO decade dominated by Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, Hamilton and Armstrong? I would argue recent examples from Contador through to Wiggins and Froome still suggest cycling is struggling with its demons. There remains an edemic culture that appears to be systemic in it's determination to exploit 'marginal gains' through 'unethical grey areas'

Is this cheating or is it pushing the boundaries of ethics permitted by the governing body. I will let you decide. I know this weekend, i'll be out on my bike, fuelled by a bowl of porridge, a love of cycling and my own integrity and character. I would argue those essential ingredients are what elite cycling needs most at the moment and in the future.

How very strange that the UCI  should now question the integrity of their own TUE process ? They should defend the fact that an approved TUE is not doping  - otherwise what's the point of the TUE system  .. or... they should open up their files of all riders competing on approved TUE'S for public scrutiny. This doesn't come close to Armstong, Puerto of Festina violations - so let's get this in proportion. The UCI make the rules - and wherever the line is drawn, let's not be so naive in thinking that all teams will not be riding right on that line. In the end Bradley and Sky have to be judged against the rules of the sport made by the UCI - and to date there is NO evidence those rules have been broken.

Hang in there Brad, Dave and SKY - the select committee have expressed an opinion only - you have every right to express the opposite opinion.

This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same "damning report" phrase which must be from the press release about this story.  I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x

Well that'sounds the first British (australian/belgian ) chicken home to roost! When does the Kenyan one fly in?
Marginal gains? (Funking cheats!)

David Braislford had the nerve to give evidence and did well. He made the point that the relationship between Dr and Bradley is a confidential one and he would not know the details of every medical issue.  Bradley and Dr Freeman both decided not to give evidence at their opportunity to give an honest account. No good whingeing after the event when people decide on the evidence in which you have failed to give an account. Why did you both decide not to provide evidence. Shane Sutton did and did well and was fighting your corner. Go on TV and face up to it don't hide behind sound bites or your reputation will remain tarnished. Bradley I recall you slagging Lord Coe off for no good reason and he could not defend himself ? why ? . Now you know how it feels. Brailsford is a top man .. you have hidden.

I'm no fan of Sir B, but this character assasination stinks to high heaven.  A bunch of politicians, not exactly the most respected occupation on earth, just below double glazing salesmen I understand, villifying someone with no substantive evidence, let alone damning evidence.  Basically they couldn't say that they'd wasted eighteen months doing almost nothing, so they have to invent, embellish and insinuate.  Just your typical politicians really.

Every one of that committee should apologise and resign.

How about if BC and Sir B write a report insinuating that the politicians on this committee were taking illegal drugs without any actual proof?  I wonder if that would make the front page of the tabloids and item one on BBC news?

Quote:

I don’t know if I believe him but wouldn’t testing have picked it up if it was a controlled substance only allowed under a TUE?

If I'm correct in my understanding of the timeline - the package was delivered in the evening, Brad would have already been through post race testing.

If you listen to the full interview, he continues “it’s  not like someone came to give me a bag and I signed for it. I was doing my job riding and as it was probably delivered to the team” - something along those lines. And that he did have florithingy that day and that might have been what was in it. Shame on sky for not keeping proper records. Just makes them look guilty 

I don’t know if I believe him but wouldn’t testing have picked it up if it was a controlled substance only allowed under a TUE?

Seems to me there a three key questions. First does Bradley Wiggins have asthma? If he does then the rules allow him to take the drug. Secondly Dave Brailsford succeeds by attention to detail gaining small increments of improvement from a wide range of techniques. The physical condition of the riders is one such. If he can use drugs legally to improve that then it is legitimate. So the second key question is, 'Could he be tempted to step over the line?'. Considering his declared wish to be clean I suspect not. Thirdly the only thing that seems odd to me is that, considering how important being clean is, and what a good organiser DB is said to be, why were the crucial records of drug deliveries so poor? Incompetence? A setup by an envious rival?

Spirited people get annoyed by bullying questions and will say unwise things that we should not take too seriously. It is verifiable facts that matter.

 Olympic and world champion over a period of about 15 years - not one positive drug test, he is 100% clean.

Presenting opinion as a judgement as the CMS committee of MPs have done is tantamount to a kangaroo court. They know full well the Media and indeed the General Public will view the reports conclusions as solid as a court verdict. Should it be a Star chamber? God help us all if such power is put back in the hands of politicians. They have a justifiable point to make but let us not forget they are not an unbiased, professional court.

In this case, the the CMS committee is decidedly less reliable than a civil court which judges on the balance of probability. In civil cases reputation of the witnesses has a great deal of persuasion when there is no clear evidence of wrong doing. Indeed, no one is suggesting Wiggins has done anything wrong . So on the balance of probability, gentlemen of the jury, did Mr Wiggins take a legally prescribed drug which he knew to have side effects which in some people may reduce weight and improve performance?

Should Wiggins, Brailsford & the rest of the Sky management have known what the side effects were? With hindsight, absolutely they should. Did they know, and are lying about it? That's anyone's guess. I try to remain even handed and place store in the past records and reputations of those involved. On that basis I am more than happy to give Wiggins & Brailsford the benefit of the doubt.

In conclusion, the CMSC should have simply outlined the facts and the possible conclusions that may be drawn from those facts. Their recommendations should have been targeted at the system not the people who run it, or who are governed by it. Maybe it wouldn't have garnered quite so much attention if the likes of Coe, Farah, Wiggins & Brailsford hadn't figured so prominently in the reports condemnations. I know who I choose to believe and who I wouldn't trust for a minute.

I hope he’s innocent like I did with Lance Armstrong... oh wait...

Hence why competitive cycling and British Cycling is going down the pan with a damaged image.

Quote:

Personally if we were to 'ignore' the fact that Sky banged on about their zero tolerance approach to cheating as the hyperbole it clearly is

Which cheating are we talking about here?

Quote:

Among allegations contained in the report was one from a former senior employee of Team Sky, speaking anonymously, who claimed that the corticosteroid triamcinolone was used by Wiggins and other members of the team at training camps not on medical grounds but to improve their performance.

Is this relevant?? Given that triamcinolone is perfectly permitted out of competition, no TUE required.

Quote:

One of the effects of the drug is that it enables the user to quickly shed weight without losing muscle power, thereby improving their power-to-weight ratio.

Is this true and verified?? I know everyone is a triamcinolone expert now - but as far as I know the weight loss was a side effect of triamcinolone due to it reducing muscle mass - although then this subject was kicked around two years ago I seem to remember that there was a lot of conjecture and competing theory’s and little in the way of consensus.

I'm no lover of Sky or its sponsors, nor do I think Wiggo is a saint however he does have a point.

The DCMS committee has no proof for its suspicions other than from an anonymous witness whose evidence has not been subject to the same sort of cross examination that Sutton, Brailsford etc were.  DCMS has extrapolated 3 known instances of taking a controlled substance backed by TUE to something larger with no substantiation other than a single untested witness.

There is evidence of incompetence in the area of medical record keeping and lax processes which have subsequently bitten Sky on the bum very firmly.  Whether Brailsford or others in the organisation ought to consider their futures is a debatable point but these are politicians who operate in the arena of public opinion = fact and Sky would do well to take account of that. 

Have Sky done nothing wrong?  It seems they have not, were a legal test to be applied.  Have they done everything completely right?  It seems they have not either, and can't prove as much.  The ususal way forward here in the political world is the rolling of the odd head, apologies all round, promise to do better in future then continue much as before but being a bit more careful.

Since I'm not a UK native, can somebody try and address my rant. Please correct me if wrong. The ordering goes something like this.

1. Russian Olympians get scrutinized/penalised for doping.

2. Russian hackers (something Bears) start hacking WADAs, UKADs etc. and start publishing TUEs of various different sportsment across the world. Let's not get into whether state was behind the hack or not.

3. Wiggins story lifts off from there.

4. The rest of Sky story - we all know how we got here.

Why is there so much Russophobia in this country? I can understand some of the history and empirial rivalries etc. But other than that?

Evidently, the hacking thing seems to be a "good thing" no? At least it was eye-opening to some people...

Disclaimer: I'm not Russian :).