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

Ogi wrote:

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.

 

 

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 :).

1. Russian Olympians get scrutinized/penalised for doping.

But this is already way above and beyond what we're even discussing in terms of Wiggins, Sky or cycling in general. The cold war, propoganda, formation of armies, and on and on were created on drug programmes that made Lance look amateur. This has been happening as long as I can remember; Russia, East Germany and China among the forerunners, probably the US but they tried to add a little subtlety. 

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.

It doesn't matter who it was really, and in some ways if they'd done a good enough job and all sports were equal, it would have raised some great debates and hopefully change. However, it was largely done to deflect and picked out a few instead of the many.

3. Wiggins story lifts off from there.

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

This is part of the problem though, the same as Froome has a problem due to due process not being followed. The leaks mean that people are being asked to prove things in the public eye, guilt is presumed because... well you know... cyclists! Froome massively highlights this when other Pro's have called for him to withdraw when they should know the rules and must no other people are competing with "adverse findings".

As for the rest of the Sky story, I've mentioned it before but I'm amazed BC get away with this and Sky don't. Also, though the Freeman thing is a convenient inconvenience, some of the things Sky are being asked to demonstrate they didn't even have to record or share.

 Why is there so much Russophobia in this country?

I really don't think there is, or certainly not one that we go out looking for as it were - I wanted Drago to smash Rocky I think there's times where social engineering ocurrs especially as Britain forged a 'special relationship' with the US. There's the 'unknown' side too as the vast country, weather, communism, wages in wheelbarrows and all other kinds of media images were thrown at us; compare and contrast to how we are fed American food, movies and on and on. 

Ogi wrote:

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 sportsmen across the world. Let's not get into whether the 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 empirical 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 :).

Don't speak ill of TeamGB.  

'The hacking is a good thing' is whether the ends justify the means, for the greater good. Whistleblowing is pretty similar, whistleblowers should be embraced and protected, but it is not the case.

WolfieSmith wrote:

I'm sure - since Wiggins signed for every DHL delivery for the team - he must be lying... 

Team Sky took one look at WADA's TUE list then took a wild guess at what Valverde, Nibali et al were taking as TUE's in the off season and applied the same marginal gains themselves. The only thing truly unethical here is accusing someone of behaving unethically simply because you suspect them of that regardless of the rules. Wiggins was the first Brit to win the TDF clean within the boundaries set by both the UCI and WADA.  I don't care what the British Board for this and that says. In legal and semantic terms they're wrong. 

I'm so tired of cycling being sports whipping boy. This story was announced late Sunday night with Mo Farrah's illegal TUE also being part of the story. 8 hours later and surprise surprise, Farah was dropped from the BBC news feed and hasn't appeared since.  Meanwhile, 10 years post Puerto, and we are still looking at cortisone micrp dosed football teams with plenty of late season zip and HGH youth rugby players who bare no ressemblance to their fore fathers in terms of speed versus build and no journalist is discussing any of that at all.

I've looked at Wada's latest figures for 2105. Olympic athletes form over half Wada's testing, yet 2012 was apparently the dirtiest game in the modern era and althought the Jamaican Athletics Association has been busted numerous times we all have to feel that Usain ia a saint? Nahhh. There are plenty of potential stories to be had and Team Sky's page 7 footnote story just isn't front page material - however much it please certain MPs and trolls to want to make it so.

 

this.

WolfieSmith wrote:

I've looked at Wada's latest figures for 2105.

**WOW**

I assume you mean 2015 - or are you just really ahead of the game?

WolfieSmith wrote:

I'm sure - since Wiggins signed for every DHL delivery for the team - he must be lying... 

Team Sky took one look at WADA's TUE list then took a wild guess at what Valverde, Nibali et al were taking as TUE's in the off season and applied the same marginal gains themselves. The only thing truly unethical here is accusing someone of behaving unethically simply because you suspect them of that regardless of the rules. Wiggins was the first Brit to win the TDF clean within the boundaries set by both the UCI and WADA.  I don't care what the British Board for this and that says. In legal and semantic terms they're wrong. 

I'm so tired of cycling being sports whipping boy. This story was announced late Sunday night with Mo Farrah's illegal TUE also being part of the story. 8 hours later and surprise surprise, Farah was dropped from the BBC news feed and hasn't appeared since.  Meanwhile, 10 years post Puerto, and we are still looking at cortisone micrp dosed football teams with plenty of late season zip and HGH youth rugby players who bare no ressemblance to their fore fathers in terms of speed versus build and no journalist is discussing any of that at all.

I've looked at Wada's latest figures for 2105. Olympic athletes form over half Wada's testing, yet 2012 was apparently the dirtiest game in the modern era and althought the Jamaican Athletics Association has been busted numerous times we all have to feel that Usain ia a saint? Nahhh. There are plenty of potential stories to be had and Team Sky's page 7 footnote story just isn't front page material - however much it please certain MPs and trolls to want to make it so.

 

You also forgot to look at UKADs league table for positive tests, strange how rugby isn't being given the same media attention as cycling?

Just look at the steroid formed muscles on some of the players? 

Even by UKADs testing data cyclists are amongst the most frequently tested in amatuer sport, yet big bucks tennis only had 12 tests carried out.

700c wrote:

Meanwhile nobody seems bothered by the dosage of the injection given to Mo Farah, specifically to enhance his performance, ahead of a marathon in 2014, as detailed in the report, nor even his own TUE's.

How about we try and apply the same scrutiny and level of testing to Athletics that we do in Cycling? and don't get me started on Football LOL! 

 

Mo Farah is probably as clean as a toilet seat.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Mo Farah is probably as clean as a toilet seat.

So cleaner then your chopping board.

700c wrote:

Meanwhile nobody seems bothered by the dosage of the injection given to Mo Farah, specifically to enhance his performance, ahead of a marathon in 2014, as detailed in the report, nor even his own TUE's.

How about we try and apply the same scrutiny and level of testing to Athletics that we do in Cycling? and don't get me started on Football LOL! 

Mo's amino acid injection wasn't of a banned substance however the way he took it and the poor records kept are the problem.  The biggest issue with Mo is he's associated with Salazar who is linked to doping.

Mo is intelligent and like cylists and rugby players is seen by the UK public - and it seems MPs - that sports people who are intelligent should know everything that is put in their bodies and why.   As someone who has participated in two sports over the years - one where clearly some players were/are on steroids at the top teams but not so on the national team  - this is very easy to look up using the internet whether a susbtance is banned or not.  Even if Mo was stupid, like footballers and the majority of track and field athletes are perceived to be, then if you are told your coach/consultant or whoever is involved in your training is dodgy then you should stop using them immediately to avoid being tainted.

Anyway the Mo Farah doping story is here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/09/ukad-sir-mo-farah-case-...

Bluebug wrote:

700c wrote:

Meanwhile nobody seems bothered by the dosage of the injection given to Mo Farah, specifically to enhance his performance, ahead of a marathon in 2014, as detailed in the report, nor even his own TUE's.

How about we try and apply the same scrutiny and level of testing to Athletics that we do in Cycling? and don't get me started on Football LOL! 

Mo's amino acid injection wasn't of a banned substance however the way he took it and the poor records kept are the problem.  The biggest issue with Mo is he's associated with Salazar who is linked to doping.

Yes and one of the specific criticisms against Salazar is his methods advocating administration of that same performance enhancing drug by injection, in potentially illegal quantities.  So It's all linked as far as I can see. 

Somebody prepared to be injected for performance enhancement, even if it is a legal drug, or to go to extreme lengths such as training for months in hard-to-reach places, working with discredited individuals, sleeping in oxygen tents,  not answering the door to testers - all adds shade to the question 'is an athlete clean?'. I can see how TUE's also could have the same effect especially when doctors give extreme steroid treatments for common conditions. Without proof you cannot accuse somebody in this way but mud sticks and the MP's should know that.

So I ask again, why is the media, and indeed politicians, not focussing on other athletes or sports?  The more testing you do the more drugs you find so it's easier to why the man on the street simply thinks it's cycling's problem. 

The 2012 games is becoming considered as the dirtiest in history, and I'm pretty sure there were more events than cycling. Wake up people.

maviczap wrote:

In this case, it's someone's say so that he took the corticosteroids 9 times, and the committee has accepted that evidence as fact.

There has been no denial of that. Just denial that it was wrong/illegal/unethical.

alansmurphy wrote:

Or uses a car...

preferably a Skoda 

alansmurphy wrote:

Nothing has stuck though has it?

The ability to prove guilt is as difficult as to prove innocence because the keeping of records has been so poor, or had been on Freeman's stolen laptop.

It stinks.

A 20 minute listen.

http://www.offtheball.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Highlights_from_Off_The_...

SevenHills wrote:

Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”

“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”

And that in essence the problem Brad. I want to beleive that you did not knowingly do anything you shouldn't have and taken anything that was not covered by a TUE but you statement that you do not know what you were given or what you took is hard to beleive.

You are a professional athlete, you have to know everything that you take /goes in to your body, otherwise you run the risk of inadvertantly doping - Alan Baxter at the Winter Olympics anyone?

Not knowing what was in the bag is not a defence that holds any water. You should have asked what you were being given and if you didn't then is it any wonder people are flinging shit and some of it sticks?

 

Dr Richard Freeman was the person who 'recieved' the jiffy bag, not Wiggo.

Inside the jiffy bag we've been told there was Fluimucil, a decongestant that does not require a prescription and is not a banned substance. The drug is not on the WADA list  of prohibited substances.

There's no 'evidence' to suggest that there was anything other than what we've been told was in that jiffy bag. The suspicion of doubt over all of this is just that a suspicion. Wiggo is being villified, guilty of something there is no evidence for.

He has however admitted to using corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition. That is what has crossed this 'ethical line'. If it wasn't for team sky banging on about how clean they were this wouldn't be the story it has become. 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, then we're left with the topic of ethics. And I'm not clever enough to know where or how you can 'draw' a line or rather 'move' the already clearly drawn line where cheating and working within the rules actually is.

Wiggo recieved a TUE for corticosteroid triamcinolone to take pre-competition, then, how that decision was made is surely the bigger more relevant question here.

peted76 wrote:

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

I consider myself a neutral in this (though I've got a bit of a problem with BC's management), but I don't think Sky's image can be ignored. To me, it forms the majority of the stick being used to beat them.

One man embodies that. Brailsford told anyone who would listen that they would be whiter than white, no grey, and they would do it through marginal gains.

So he's either a fool or a knave. He's either guilty of boasting about controls, management and systems that just didn't exist, and actually oversaw a pretty chaotic structure in which records didn't get uploaded and laptops disappeared: hubris.

Or it was the perfect management structure that his picture painted, in which case he's got a lot of awkward questions that he is lying in response to: cheating.

Neither of these scenarios is good for him. Either of these scenarios gets a beating off the British press once they've smelled blood, and politicians follow what the press tell them to.

As far as the intrigue goes, Brailsford could've done the honourable thing a while ago and made this less about Wiggins, or Froome. His position has been untenable since this first started trickling out, and it will still be untenable when he finally shuffles off somewhere else, but it will have caused a shit load more damage to Sky and the riders. Brass neck, that guy.

peted76 wrote:

He has however admitted to using corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition. That is what has crossed this 'ethical line'.

So what was he supposed to do, assuming that he does have asthma - something that can be readily verified from his NHS medical file?   Wait for an asthma attack half way up a climb and then call for treatment while the peleton heads over the horizon?  Its pretty standard with asthma to give a treatment to prevent attacks rather than allow them to happen and then treat the symptoms.  See for example https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/in-depth/asthma-me...

Tony wrote:

peted76 wrote:

He has however admitted to using corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition. That is what has crossed this 'ethical line'.

So what was he supposed to do, assuming that he does have asthma - something that can be readily verified from his NHS medical file?   Wait for an asthma attack half way up a climb and then call for treatment while the peleton heads over the horizon?  Its pretty standard with asthma to give a treatment to prevent attacks rather than allow them to happen and then treat the symptoms.  See for example https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/asthma/in-depth/asthma-me...

If giving corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition to asthma sufferers was the best or only option, then there'd be 190 TUE's allowed every July. What did the other 189 asthma suffering athletes riding the tdf do that year?

(Actual numbers may vary, sarcasm mode engaged).

peted76 wrote:

If giving corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition to asthma sufferers was the best or only option, then there'd be 190 TUE's allowed every July. What did the other 189 asthma suffering athletes riding the tdf do that year?

(Actual numbers may vary, sarcasm mode engaged).

Not really, asthma isn't necessarily about getting out of breath on a big effort. Altitude, pollen count, temperature, exertion, air conditioning, and on and on can all have an impact.

I get the point, maybe everyone could have it as a precaution, on the other hand the so few times it's actually used could equally be a point for the defence as the prosecution...

peted76 wrote:

SevenHills wrote:

Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”

“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”

And that in essence the problem Brad. I want to beleive that you did not knowingly do anything you shouldn't have and taken anything that was not covered by a TUE but you statement that you do not know what you were given or what you took is hard to beleive.

You are a professional athlete, you have to know everything that you take /goes in to your body, otherwise you run the risk of inadvertantly doping - Alan Baxter at the Winter Olympics anyone?

Not knowing what was in the bag is not a defence that holds any water. You should have asked what you were being given and if you didn't then is it any wonder people are flinging shit and some of it sticks?

 

Dr Richard Freeman was the person who 'recieved' the jiffy bag, not Wiggo.

Inside the jiffy bag we've been told there was Fluimucil, a decongestant that does not require a prescription and is not a banned substance. The drug is not on the WADA list  of prohibited substances.

There's no 'evidence' to suggest that there was anything other than what we've been told was in that jiffy bag. The suspicion of doubt over all of this is just that a suspicion. Wiggo is being villified, guilty of something there is no evidence for.

He has however admitted to using corticosteroid triamcinolone in a TUE as a preventative measure before competition. That is what has crossed this 'ethical line'. If it wasn't for team sky banging on about how clean they were this wouldn't be the story it has become. 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, then we're left with the topic of ethics. And I'm not clever enough to know where or how you can 'draw' a line or rather 'move' the already clearly drawn line where cheating and working within the rules actually is.

Wiggo recieved a TUE for corticosteroid triamcinolone to take pre-competition, then, how that decision was made is surely the bigger more relevant question here.

 

Exactly. lets look at it piece by piece.

1. Sky say package was flumicil. - Wiggo said he was on it and its not banned

2. Others suggest it was possibly triamcinolone. Lets say it was. So what? He had an TUE for it. Its not as though he was not allowed, UCI gave approval. So its a moot point really. If he had taken anything else it would show up in a test.

So the package either contained a perfectly legal flu remedy or a controlled substance he was allowed to take under the rules anyway. So what is the problem? Wiggo confirmed he had taken it with a TUE. He couldnt have taken more than the permitted amount as it would show. This is where people are getting into an uproar but have no real argument as regardless of the actual circumstance NO RULES WERE BROKEN!

Smoggysteve wrote:

2. Others suggest it was possibly triamcinolone. Lets say it was. So what? He had an TUE for it.

He didn't. He had had TUEs for it in the past, but he needed one for each time he was treated, and didn't have one on this occasion.

SevenHills wrote:

Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”

“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”

Brad makes it clear in the interview that he never even saw the jiffy bag, so why would he know what was in it?