Doping

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.

Leinders was a mistake, as Sky admitted when they sacked him. Not sure really why that's something that Wiggins has done wrong. He appears to have overstated his case in his no doubt ghost-written autobiography regarding needles. Other than that, I'm not clear what you mean by 'endless claims ... that are proven to be untrue'. Sounds rather like the sort of mud-slinging the usual ex-dopers are so keen to be indulged in.

As I understand it the TUEs are given to treat illness, not to prevent it. I would be very happy to be wrong about that. But if they are, the suspicion is raised by Wiggins only being ill enough to need them before the three grand tours he targeted.
The notion that his autobiography was ghost written so we shouldn't hold him to it - what is this? The Katie Price defence? Sorry, I didn't write it, or read it. But it was only about drugs so I didn't think it would matter.

1). The drug is known to be used by dopers for its performance enhancing effects. Was that considered prior to treatment?
2). There are other treatments without the enhancing side effects. Wiggins used these in the past. The drug has been descirbed as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Were other treatments considered?
3). Was the drug used for preventative reasons, or to treat an episode?
4). The notorious doping doctor Geert Leinders was on the Sky staff at the time. He is alleged to have falsely obtained TUEs for this precise drug for use by Rasmussen as a PED prior to GTs. Did he play any role in the decision to apply for this TUE?
5). Why did the treatments coincide with major target races?
6). Why was the treatment not used in the 2014 and 2015 seasons? Did Wiggins' no longer suffer from asthma?

We know TUEs can be falsely obtained and the system is open to abuse.

Do you have no interest in the answer to these questions? Don't you think it is notable that Wiggins is the only rider attracting attention? Froome's TUEs don't look dodgy, therefore he is attracting no scrutiny.

As I understand it the TUEs are given to treat illness, not to prevent it.

Prophylactic treatment is a normal part of asthma management. In fact, if you only treat once you are experiencing symptoms, your doctor will probably give you a bollocking.

Unless Sir Bradley lied to his doctor, or his doctor lied to the TUEC, there is no case for either of them to answer. Maybe WADA needs to be a bit harsher with athletes and tell them to take a week or two off if they're ill, but that's their problem not Sky's.

If you want darkness, have a read about paralympic athletes and "boosting" as doping

Break your toes with hammers

Brad to reveal all* on Andrew Marr on sunday at 9am.

Jesus.

• Sarcasm
  

Unless Sir Bradley lied to his doctor, or his doctor lied to the TUEC, there is no case for either of them to answer.

This.

Is this round three/four or five now? Cummings in the latest batch. Wonder what he's legally/illegally done wrong/right...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37454046

Salbutamol...in 2008...which is no longer on the banned list

fabs and fuglsang are also on there.

Salbutamol

And fluticasone, although the TUE say 250ng twice a day, rather than the 250μg found in the high dose Flixotide which is a common inhaler in the UK. Whoever typed up the TUE should be tested for drugs...

Inhaled fluticasone has the same restriction as inhaled beclomethasone now - no TUE required when used in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.

That sound you can hear isn't Steve Cummings wheezing, it's the Kremlin scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Salbutamol...in 2008...which is no longer on the banned list

Not quite true. Salbutamol is a "threshold substance", you need a TUE to use more than 1600μg a day, and you need to keep an eye on your usage profile as it seems possible to exceed the 1000ng/ml excretion rate which triggers an adverse analytical finding on less than the maximum permitted dose.

Wiggins is to go on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday.

Full confession time. (/trollolol)

Apparently has been pre recorded. Now Wiggo's old Doctor has come out with a "looks strange" comment.

What next? His primary school teacher saying she always knew he'd be a junkie?

Funnily enough his primary school teacher was on his recent Sky documentary saying that they never thought he'd amount to anything!

Was quite a moving moment to be honest.

Froome is at Etape London tomorrow. If I see him I'll ask him what Brad had to say on Andy Marr...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/24/bradley-wiggins-andrew-marr-unfair-advantage

Tom Dumoulin on Wiggins:

http://asia.eurosport.com/cycling/bradley-wiggins-use-of-drug-exemptions-stinks-says-dutch-star-tom-dumoulin_sto5872182/story.shtml

Walsh has hung Wiggins out to dry today.

Except he hasn't. Look, the rules are black and white and what Wiggins has done is acceptable within that framework. He cannot be accused of wrongdoing.

From an ethical perspective, and this is a grey area as people have differing views on this, you could argue what he's done isn't in line with he's previous statements on his attitude towards doping, but that still doesn't make it wrong.

It's a storm in a teacup and has provoked the exact response Russia wanted in leaking this information into the public domain.

And David Walsh can fuck off, he's virulently anti-doping when it comes to cycling, quite the opposite when it comes to his beloved rugby which, still, has a huge doping problem.

If 'it's within the rules' is the new 'never tested positive,' then we might as well give up on the idea of clean sport.

It's not even a grey area. Did Wiggins require that particular steroid at that time?

In the interview he even admitted it was preventative - this is outwith the rules.

1 Attachment

.

2 Attachments