So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005
1 lurker |
80 watchers
Mar 2018
11:16am, 7 Mar 2018
4,087 posts
|
larkim
We can both see what we want to see from that documentation. From the 55 doses of Triam.. Sky say less than 10 were used on Sky riders. Depending on your perspective, you may choose to believe that or not. But it certainly doesn't "prove" that there was Triam in the jiffy bag, nor does it "prove" it was being used inappropriately. You've said before that we know that they didn't buy Flumicil at all before it was supposedly sent in the jiffy bag - do you have a source for that as I didn't see that in the Guardian report. The Guardian report says that there are records of Freeman buying Flumicil previously in Switzerland, which may well be the case. That's not the same as saying that they've never bought it in the UK. But you may have better info on this, I'm just asking as I've not seen that mentioned anywhere else. As for use of a drug as a preventative, that is not outside of the TUE rules. Quite the contrary, the TUE that was applied for and authorised in line with the UCIs processes is entirely for the purposes of preventative medicine - you don't take anti-allergy medications after the allergy has caused to to collapse with restricted airways and needing resus, you take it in the prospect of the conditions giving rise to the allergy coming about. I don't see how it could be used in any other way, and I'd accept that that of course opens up a question about how you "know" the allergy conditions will arise. At the risk of promoting other websites, the BikeRadar forums have a pro cycling section, and there are some interesting threads on there (from where I get a reasonable amount of info that I re-post here too) which are worth a read - plenty of contrary opinions there too! |
Mar 2018
12:29pm, 7 Mar 2018
12,621 posts
|
Bazoaxe
larkim. We almost all ignored the lone voice on Lance Armstrong initially and look where we ended up. I agree there is a lot of ambiguity out there and its not clear what we should believe. However, there is enough to suggest that at best Wiggins and Sky sailed very close to the boundaries. |
|
Mar 2018
12:44pm, 7 Mar 2018
4,089 posts
|
larkim
I've come across the "Lance argument" a few times, and I'm not convinced there's any merit in it to be honest. The cross team walls of silence, the complicity of the international governing body, the bullying nature of LA himself (including his backstory) contributed to a perfect storm. Expecting that again is part of the reason that people are so suspicious, and whilst lightning does often strike twice (just ask the top of the Empire State Building!) I really can't see that level of deep collusion, silence etc around now. I may be naive, but really? What we're talking about at worst here seems to be the potential for a legal drug to have been legally used at the edges of the rules. And the reasons why we can't conclude on it are down to admin cockups (for which Sky deserve huge criticism of course). It seems to me that the most likely of all the scenarios is admin cockup - less likely is the borderline unethical use of drugs that the MPs report suggests, and less likely again is the massive coverup. But, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong! |
Mar 2018
12:57pm, 7 Mar 2018
25,625 posts
|
SPR
I don't agree with the Lance argument, and I think I was one of the earliest (vocal) condemners on here. The Lance argument seems to be used by a few to accuse and hope you're proved right later. That's not how to construct a valid argument even is the person you're accusing is as subsequently proved to be doping. That said, Sky have already failed their stated objective when they started. Certainly clear recording would be expected as part of that objective. |
|
Mar 2018
1:03pm, 7 Mar 2018
25,626 posts
|
SPR
I also wouldn't dismiss the evidence of an anonymous source. Whether they can spell isn't material to what information they are privy to.
|
|
Mar 2018
1:06pm, 7 Mar 2018
12,623 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I was one of the naïve ones who believed in Lance Armstrong for a long long and I guess I don't really want to be caught out again !
|
|
Mar 2018
1:16pm, 7 Mar 2018
4,090 posts
|
larkim
I think there are a lot that share that view Baz. I don't remember being particularly polarised one way or the other about Lance, I suspect it just coincided with me not watching the Tours very much etc. I certainly don't remember being shocked when it all came out, but neither was I screaming at the screen that he was a clear doper when he was winning races. So without that history of emotional involvement in missing cheating in the past, I'm not that concerned about being wrong today - I'm just voicing the way I see it based on what I've read, heard and seen. |
Mar 2018
1:18pm, 7 Mar 2018
12,334 posts
|
Chrisull
I wasn't using the Lance argument, but pointing out dismissing "an anonymous rider" wasn't really very fair. I think part of the source was here. dailymail.co.uk |
|
Mar 2018
1:36pm, 7 Mar 2018
4,091 posts
|
larkim
I was answering Baz in the Lance argument Chris. I don't know whether the anonymous source is the same individual that tipped off UKAD about the jiffy bag, I'm not sure that's clear. But equally, I can't see any other evidence offered to the committee about the repeated use of triamcinolone by either Wiggins or others. I appreciate there is an inference from Matt Lawson's writings that the other doses of Triamcinolone must have gone somewhere (and by his logic, they must have gone into Wiggins and his teammates), but unless I'm not reading things correctly the anonymous letter is the only source of that accusation. You're 100% right of course that dismissing anonymous whistleblowers out of hand is unfair, and we need to make sure that whistleblowers are well protected and have clear (and safe) routes to reporting to the authorities. Without whistleblowers, there aer risks that the Armstrong issues would not have come to light. But equally, we need to be on the lookout for malicious or badly informed whistleblowers, so need some verification methods. After all, it wouldn't be too difficult for me to set up an anonymous email account, spoof some BC documentation and email Matt Lawton with sensational details about the inner workings of Team Sky based on filling in some of the blanks that need resolving. Now Lawson may well know the source, have fabulously credible validation of the individual and the picture they paint. But for me that's not come out in the reporting of the situation, and that leaves a big gap for me. We need the old classic TV interview - shadowy figure, voice disguised, a report to camera by the investigative journalist clearly stating what they've seen, who they've spoken to, validating the info. |
|
Mar 2018
7:46pm, 7 Mar 2018
12,335 posts
|
Chrisull
UCI now weigh in too, want an investigation into team sky with anti-doping foundation to do it. bbc.co.uk "unacceptable, even if no rules were broken" If they something is wrong it most definitely, because these are the guys who gave the ok to Lance to carry on abusing and ok'ed his retrospective steroid cream TUE after he failed four drugs tests. The hawks are circling, can't see Froome getting to defend his TDF title. |
Related Threads
-
Cheating in amateur sports
Apr 2017
-
Are you doping? Do you know someone who is?
Mar 2017
-
Tour De France
Aug 2020
-
Le Tour 2016
Jul 2016
-
Tour de France 2016
Jun 2016
-
T\'Tour in otley
Apr 2016
-
Le Tour 2015
Aug 2015
-
Le Tour 2014
Jun 2015
-
Tour of Britain
Jan 2015
-
Womens Tour Of Britain
May 2014
