Doping

Doesn't it bother you at all that Rasmussen was taking the exact same injection (40mg triamcinolone acetonide intramuscular) before grand tours under the guidance of Geert Leinders?

Definitely juicing

Agreed

Doesn't it bother you at all that Rasmussen was taking the exact same injection (40mg triamcinolone acetonide intramuscular) before grand tours under the guidance of Geert Leinders?

Wow, is that right?

What's Marcel Kittel got to do with it, was he implicated?

I loved him in The Notebook. Classic Rickman. "just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her."

Cry evryteim.

So he says. But he says a lot of things that don't turn out to be true. Plus he was taking quite a bit more on top of that.

If Sky/Wiggins were up to no good, as you are insinuating, do you not think that applying for a TUE is a strange way to go about a doping programme?

If you can use a PED within the letter of the regulations, albeit not in the spirit, all the better. The presence of a TUE legitimizes the use. The TUE system can clearly be abused though.

Do you disagree with this? Or do you think that riders should try and obtain TUEs for whatever they can get away with, and if they obtain a performance benefit so be it?

The most simple thing would be for the the riders to do whatever they can within the rules to go as fast as they can.

Then have the governing body regulate the rules to create an even playing field.

Could it be that the TUE's were masking other PEDs?

Whether they were using them legitimately or not, the bigger issue is Sky and their continual, blatant hypocrisy.

How are they supposed to maintain any trust in their cleanliness when they keep getting caught out?

They've been caught out because, somewhat naively in modern cycling, they have a zero tolerance approach to doping, which, given the skeletons in the whole sports' closet, keeps coming back to haunt them.

I don't get why they are being hypocritical here though? There is a system in place to allow athletes access to substances that treat common illnesses that are banned in competition. They've used that system to treat asthma and hayfever. Where's the hypocrisy?

What's the performance benefit here? Because the only people I've seen saying it has one are ex-dopers who like nothing more than getting their names in the press now they are defenders of the sport (having previously pissed all over it when they were actually racing).

NHS guidelines suggest that one of the side effects for Kenalog is rapid weight gain. There is no mention of rapid weight loss, which has now been accepted as a fact by those who want to cast Sky in a bad light.

Personally I'm ambivalent on it, there's a line beyond which you are cheating. The fact that Sky get right up to that line should surprise no-one in my opinion.

Where to start?

Needles, Lienders, endless claims by Brailsford, Wiggins and Sky (sometimes via Walsh although he's distancing himself now) that are proven to be untrue. Say one thing loudly but do the opposite in secret.

The zero tolerance policy is an absolute farce and always has been but why keep on with the charade?

The use of triamcinolone acetonide as a PED was well known long before this. Millar wrote about it in his book in 2011. It was the drug Armstrong obtained a post dated TUE for in 2010. This isn't a case of ex-dopers coming out after the event and saying 'oh yeah, I took that too'.

The benefits I have read are:

• catabolic steroid that breaks down muscle, facilitating weight loss and aiding power to weight ratio.
  
• reduces inflammation and aids recovery.
  
• creates a feeling of energy.
  
  

I haven't heard a single doctor say this is a routine drug of choice to treat symptoms. I have read a number of doctor's state that other drugs that can be taken by inhallation and don't have the side effects would be equally effective. The doctor in the article below calls it 'bonkers' and a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-drug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/

The zero tolerance policy is an absolute farce

Really? I'd be interested to know what examples you think there are of anyone at Sky having using banned substances without a TUE. Because I'm not aware of any, and Sky's zero tolerance policy is not, and never has been, that they won't employ anyone who has ever had a TUE, because they'd be awfully short of riders if they did.

I don't think it's got anything to do with getting a level-footing. I think the perception is that the 'West' is riddled with hypocrisy. They're quite paranoid, the Russians, and they think we're out to get them, not realising that we actually don't give them much thought. Hard people, too.

Our holier-than-thou, we don't cheat, but that's not to say we won't do anything else to gain an advantage, may well grate with them as well, who knows...

You could say that Sky's zero tolerance programme is more an exercise in marketing. What they basically mean is that they're all about due diligence and won't do anything that's illegal, but they'd inject their riders with petrol if it was allowed and gave them marginal gains.

JTL, Bobby Julich, Sean Yates, Steven de Jongh, Michael Batrry

Geert Leinders

None of whom doped whilst working for Sky as far as we know.

Presumably you have evidence to the contrary? And you forgot Michael Rogers too.

anyone at Sky having using banned substances without a TUE

Doesn't anything about using them 'while at Sky'.

"the UCI announced he would be cleared of any wrongdoing, no further action would be taken and that Rogers would be free to race again. The UCI accepted that there was a significant probability that the clenbuterol came from contaminated meat consumed while Rogers was competing in China" but if you want to add him to the list of Sky's dopers to support my trolling argument, go for it :P

All of whom were either sacked or left Sky because of the zero tolerance policy. Assuming you don't buy Sean Yates' bullshit excuse for leaving. Doesn't sound that farcical to me.

The doctor in the article below calls it 'bonkers' and a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut'.

telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/­09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-d­rug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/

But in the same Telegraph article the same doctor says he doesn't think the hay fever drug would work well as a PED. So the whole argument goes around in circles.

Fundamentally it seems highly unlikely Wiggins personally sat around all those years ago studying peer reviewed scientific studies, slowly whittling down which hay fever drug he should take ahead of a grand tour. A Sky doctor took the decision, and WADA/UCI/whoever approved it. Wiggins is free from blame as far as I can see.

Still not entirely sure what he's supposed to have done wrong, frankly. He got a TUE for a treatment. That means he was entitled to have that treatment. Which means that if he did receive that treatment then he stayed within the rules, and didn't cheat. What have I missed?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/36823453