-
◾Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?
Because that would be stupid.
-
You seem very keen for everyone to stop talking about this subject but do you not agree that it is these kind of discussions which will drive the sport to being cleaner, more transparent and generally better for all involved (competitors and fans)?
Where have I said people should stop talking about this? The point remains that, as yet, not one single piece of evidence that suggests any wrongdoing has come to light.
As for this type of discussion making the sport more transparent, I'd argue that it has the opposite effect - if a team that claims it has nothing to hide is subjected to this level of scrutiny whilst teams with known issues escape scrutiny completely, I cannot see how this will improve 'transparency'. Riders are already subjected to a tremendous amount of scrutiny, having to record their daily whereabouts, have regular blood and urine tests outside of competition and have in competition tests. How much further is it fair to go? Does publishing your private medical data not seem a step too far to you?
This whole issue of 'openness and transparency' is one of those concepts that means different things to different people and, generally, will never satisfy the diehards who, having been burnt by their belief in Armstrong, now think that anyone who wins a bike race must be doped to the gills. For a fair sport, all teams should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and transparency, there should not be disparity because of the country your team is based in.
You are reading a single comment by @Scrabble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Howard
andyp
@Scrabble
The BBC sum up the questions pretty well. The relevance of some have been covered here, some I think are still genuine questions.
@andyp You seem very keen for everyone to stop talking about this subject but do you not agree that it is these kind of discussions which will drive the sport to being cleaner, more transparent and generally better for all involved (competitors and fans)?
We hold cyclists, particularly those of our domestic world tour team, to the highest account. They ask us to believe in them, believe they are clean, but then cannot explain, or struggle to explain some pretty basic questions around how they have conducted themselves. Do you not think this is worthy of debate?
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/38379953
But questions remain:
◾Why has it taken so long for organisations that claim to be committed to transparency and accountability to get here?
◾The Daily Mail now reports that Brailsford tried to persuade them not to run the Jiffy bag story. Why go to such efforts when it merely contained a decongestant?
◾Will British Cycling or Team Sky now be able to provide a paper trail to back up the Fluimucil explanation?
◾Why was British Cycling president Bob Howden still unable to say what was in the jiffy bag months after the story broke, only for Brailsford to then reveal it?
◾Why were Brailsford's original explanations about the delivery not correct when all he had to do was ask former team medic Dr Richard Freeman?
◾Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?
◾Why did former coach Shane Sutton "authorise" the delivery of something, the details of which he claims not to be aware of? And why did Wiggins' long-term mentor not know what medication his star cyclist was taking?
◾And why was Wiggins taking a decongestant that apparently is not meant to be used by asthmatics (like him)?
Sadly for Team Sky and British Cycling, despite the belated clarity, for many critics the sense of suspicion will linger beyond today.