Doping

So we take a Twitter troll as gospel? I'm the same height and weight as Froome, am I a doper too?

That Ouefeh bloke's just another @digger_forum account, isn't he? If he isn't, the doping trolls all write an awful lot like each other.

I could show you a picture of my legs after a hot ride where I'm not far from Froome, and I drink all the IPA and eat all the cheese.

Not as gospel. I just thought it was an interesting point.
More what cortisone will do for you, not that froome is abusing it.

But to be fair, it's not illegal is it. OOC you can use cortisone fine.

There has been an obsession with weight loss in procycling for as long as I can remember, with people like Sciandri, "eat watermelon it fills you up, but has hardly any calories", and Sean Yates "He (Chris Newton) has a fat arse, he needs to lose weight" quoted on it.

Sky seem to have a particular focus on it, but one assumes that they achieve low weight with a controlled diet, rather than cortisone injections, given the latter is a doping offence.

Taking cortisone orally out of competition is not a doping offence.

Also I noticed doping Dan Stevans Twitter is vhermantly anti doping. What gives. Maybe we can consider him a millar rather than a lance.

Millar was a victim of a system in professional cycling at the time where doping was seen as the norm. Stevens is an amateur drug cheat.

Fuck him.

It was a jab at what Gabriel Evans said when he was sentenced.

Of course, fuck Dan Stevans. Bell end.

“All I can affect moving forward is how I portray myself, I want to come across as a David Millar and not a Lance Armstrong. I just have to figure out a way of dealing with that as best I can.”
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/gabriel-evans-curiosity-and-loss-of-national-title-led-to-epo-use-203527#kPyJ7bxflTIYssrB.99

I know for a fact that Jeremy Corbyn is doped, I read it on Twitter.

Jeremy Corbyn is doped, I read it on Twitter

I think whoever you're following has fat fingers. JC is a dope.

The David Walsh column about Wiggins in today's Sunday times is pretty unflinching. Can definitely see more scepticism heading Wiggins' way.

Millar was a victim? Yes - and I suppose he definitely only had EPO stashed in his flat that one time the gendarmes happened to pop round.

Dekker, Millar etc are very happy to paint this image as victims but it doesn't stack up for me.

Dekker, Millar etc are very happy to paint this image as victims but it doesn't stack up for me.

In an era of rampant doping, there were hard choices to make. Yes, the ones who chose to dope against their better judgement made the wrong moral call, but the ones who stuck to their principles were dropped by their teams for not 'preparing' properly. In the hierarchy of victimisation, losing your job because you refuse to cheat is worse, but everybody who was forced to choose between cheating and not making a living was also a victim of the group of psychopaths at the top who didn't have to think twice about doping.

I don't think that David Millar portrays himself as a victim. He places his doping in context, but ultimately takes full responsibility for it.

He's made victims of us all with his stupid hats.

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/jaksche-on-skys-tue-controversy-we-used-the-same-excuse-in-my-era/

Jaksche is rent a quote on shit like this.

If Sky had something to hide, why did they apply for TUEs for both Wiggins and Froome? The stuff they took is only banned in competition, so taking it out of competition is fine. They've done nothing wrong by any of the UCI or WADA rules, yet still it's being made out to be proof of Sky's endemic doping programme by the usual suspects.

http://www.lavozdeasturias.es/noticia/asturias/2016/09/17/policia-desarticula-red-dopaje-asturias/00031474101331258403308.htm

His point about timings is interesting as is the 'no needles' thing. Still, they're above board rule-wise even if it's pushing the limits.

So Wiggins lost weight by injecting steroids against asthma he did not have?

How would out of competition exactly be defined please?

I've always defended Sky and Wiggins because there was no evidence of doping. But this is evidence of something, it may not be cheating because it's in the rules, but it looks dodgy. If it was Valverde few people would give him the benefit. Wiggins said in his book that he had never had injections, which is simply untrue, as it turns out. His spokesperson's attempts to clarify what he really meant aren't entirely convincing and, again, if they were translated from Spanish, we'd all be saying, yeh, right.
Not that three injections discredit him or his whole career but they are not nothing. The timing of them is not nothing.
And worst of all I think Froome might not get that knighthood now.

It's hard to feel comfortable about it - http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/

There are plenty of things out there that will give you a performance boost, from beetroot juice to caffeine pills. The line between those and what is illegal is a fairly arbitrary line in the sand. We depend on WADA to draw that line in the sand for us and basically Wiggins and Sky are on the right side of the line on current evidence. It may be an uncomfortable truth but it doesn't make them cheats.

I think it does mean the use of TUEs and OOC competition cortisones need to be addressed but the description of Wiggins symptons are like the severe allergy attacks I used to get as a child: severe rhinitis, irritated eyes, asthma. It was horrible, and I would have made anything to make it stop. The injections he got to combat this were legit, and unless he lied about the reasons for taking them he didn't nothing wrong. Travis Tygart summed it up really well, defending the leaked athletes and he wouldn't do that unless he felt these athletes were operating above board.

Its an own goal claiming he didn't have injections in his book, one of the reasons its a good idea not to write a effing book before you are retired. And it does expose Sky to accusations of hypocrisy, but I've always felt that they are a team willing to push the limits, in terms of gaining an edge, but studious in staying inside the law. It's very hard to gauge exactly the benefits these injections gave him, but if WADA says they are legit then for me I have no issues with them. But I do think new rules for TUEs are needed.

It's fairly clear, though, that the revelations of Wiggins's injections are clear evidence that Valverde has doped.