Doping

Such an awesome self own

The DCMS Doping In Sport report is out Monday.

I guess participants have had chance to read and ask for redactions.

https://cyclingtips.com/news/uruguayan-rider-positive-cera/

Tsk, tsk.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/bradley-wiggins-and-team-sky-accused-drugs-in-damning-report

Tsk, tsk.

I hope you're tutting over MPs sticking their noses into stuff which is absolutely none of their business. Firstly, cheating at games is not a matter with which a national government need concern itself, since games are a private contract between consenting adults who have their choice of civil tribunal to decide any disputes, and secondly if anything happened here, it happened in a foreign country to the detriment of foreign nationals, so it's not even peripherally related to any proper function of the UK parliament or government. Wiggins is a twat, Brailsford is a dick, but neither have done me any harm whereas politicians grandstanding over matters far outside their remit while neglecting their proper duties is bad for all of us.

The murky overlap with BC is surely grounds, no? Sounds like there's more to come from the GMC on Freeman. The story that keeps on giving.

"Crossing an ethical line" is bullshit. There are no grey areas, they either broke the rules or they didn't and, as no charges have been brought by UKAD, WADA or the UCI, they didn't break the rules.

This could either be a bit of a torpedo for the reputation of professional cycling (and by extension, cycling in general) or it could just shift the boundaries of what 'credible' cycling constitutes even more. That wouldn't really be a bad thing.

The Guardian are suggesting it is a 'death knell' for Team Sky. I'm not sure it will be, because Froome case notwithstanding, the 'unethical but within the rules' still does sound a bit flimsy to lose sponsorship.

The GMC is a curious beast. From what I know of the case the Dr involved may have breached the GMC's medical standards- see "Good Medical Practice", but unless the evidence is enough for the case to move to an investigation , ie the reasonable prospects test, then they will close it. I am not sure where at what stage it's at the moment.
If it does move forward to an investigation, sanctions and a tribunal hearing then yes, it could get interesting; but don't hold your breath.

Tommmmmm, professional cycling's reputation was lost at the end of the 2nd Tour de France.

Depends where their funds are coming from. If any part of their money is public, BC, Olympic shizzle, whatever, then they're fair game.

Of course, I'd quite like them to fuck off and reverse Brexit before this toss.

Pretty scathing of coe and farah as well from what i have just read.

BBCR4 Today featuring interview with Tony Doyle.

I look around me at the state of various essential services in this country, the blatant corruption at all levels of government and especially at council level and I couldn't agree more.

...and yet that didn't prove fatal.

You're right in a way, but the DCMS Select Committee are not:

1) Permanently engaged with doing nothing but looking at cheating in sport

2) Members of the government

3) More than 1.7% of all MPs

Saying they have more important things to deal with is like telling a PCSO who tells you off for dropping litter that they should be off shutting down paedophile rings.

That bastion of good ethics and probity?

I've no problem whatsoever with parliamentary scrutiny of taxpayers' money, which essentially what this boils down to.

But to use 'an anonymous but well respected' source as the main source of your accusations doesn't sit well with me, then to make the headline that Sky crossed an ethical line, which doesn't exist, is fundamentally wrong. They either broke the rules of the sport or they didn't, and all the available evidence says they didn't, so there is no case to answer.

Do you think the sport could become more transparent and ethical as a result?

Some bloke (an MP?) on Radio 4

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/970568149144875008

And (apparently) a copy of the report

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DCMS-Doping-report.pdf

So Team Sky is a public body now?

Are they trying to say that every single other sport is clean?

Well, I haven't really followed this story and my understanding of it is superficial at best, but it seems like such a mess that my tutting was certainly partly directed at Sky. I don't care for (Team) Sky in any way other than that Tao rides for them, and I'd hate it if his career were messed up because of this.

I agree with Alb that there's some connection with public funding in the role that BC plays etc. Whether that justifies the report and its conclusions I have no idea.

I doubt it. I don’t care really either, the WADA code is for all sports to follow, as long as cycling remains signed up to that then that’s good enough for me.

"Crossing an ethical line" is bullshit. There are no grey areas, they either broke the rules or they didn't and, as no charges have been brought by UKAD, WADA or the UCI, they didn't break the rules.

Only if you assume that 'the rules' are the only ethical standard around, but they're not. It's perfectly possible for someone to do something wrong for which no crime or offence is defined on the statute book. You can say, technically, that they haven't 'committed a crime' in that case if you assume that crimes are only defined by law, but I think most people would probably accept that you can use the term 'crime' loosely for things that the law hasn't captured.

In terms of judicial proceedings, of course, you're right that what matters is whether they broke the rules or not, and it is obviously useful to stick to prosecuting people only for what's been agreed in law, not least because different people's 'ethical lines' are widely different, but changing awareness of what is ethical or not can also lead to changes in law.

I do think it's a fallacy to say that 'as no charges have been brought by UKAD, WADA or the UCI, they didn't break the rules'--the reason why no charges have been brought may just be because there's a lack of evidence. I mean, they still don't seem to have been able to see through the concealment the Jiffy bag provided. :)