Log in:  

Register

Brits don't dope?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

Re:

25 Oct 2017 09:46

Freddythefrog wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/10/23/drug-cheats-will-not-face-time-jail-rules-review/



“None of those interviewed were in favour of criminalisation. Sports bodies believe that their investigations would be affected by criminalisation of doping in sport as it would slow down their own processes. The review found that criminalising the act of doping in sport would not add to combating doping in sport with the provisions that already exist sufficient.

“The report found that the strongest deterrent for athletes and their support staff is lengthy bans from their involvement in sport as well as the inevitable loss of earnings as a result of that.”

Yeah - way to go - criminalisation would slow down investigations and adequate deterent exists.

Can Tracey tell us when the UKAD investigation into Linda McCartney will be completed. Only been going for five years to date. Makes the Jiffybag investigation look like it is still at the pre-school stage.

Anti-doping works. La la la, I am not listening la la la. Who did she speak to ? Seb, Paula, Brad, Sutton and Sapstead ?


I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what they said but there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had around whether criminalising the act of doping is worthwhile. Personally I don't think it is, just like I don't think criminalising drug users is particularly helpful. It's much better to pursue those who traffic, distribute and administer the doping through the current legal/professional framework available. There are no doubt improvements that could be made here, although I'm not at all confident in my knowledge of those laws and their limits nationally and internationally to make suggestions.

Why do you think criminalising the act of doping is a sensible way forward?
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 6,713
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

25 Oct 2017 10:12

King Boonen wrote:
Freddythefrog wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/10/23/drug-cheats-will-not-face-time-jail-rules-review/



“None of those interviewed were in favour of criminalisation. Sports bodies believe that their investigations would be affected by criminalisation of doping in sport as it would slow down their own processes. The review found that criminalising the act of doping in sport would not add to combating doping in sport with the provisions that already exist sufficient.

“The report found that the strongest deterrent for athletes and their support staff is lengthy bans from their involvement in sport as well as the inevitable loss of earnings as a result of that.”

Yeah - way to go - criminalisation would slow down investigations and adequate deterent exists.

Can Tracey tell us when the UKAD investigation into Linda McCartney will be completed. Only been going for five years to date. Makes the Jiffybag investigation look like it is still at the pre-school stage.

Anti-doping works. La la la, I am not listening la la la. Who did she speak to ? Seb, Paula, Brad, Sutton and Sapstead ?


I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what they said but there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had around whether criminalising the act of doping is worthwhile. Personally I don't think it is, just like I don't think criminalising drug users is particularly helpful. It's much better to pursue those who traffic, distribute and administer the doping through the current legal/professional framework available. There are no doubt improvements that could be made here, although I'm not at all confident in my knowledge of those laws and their limits nationally and internationally to make suggestions.

Why do you think criminalising the act of doping is a sensible way forward?

I do not wish to answer for Freddy, but, and I am a layman so at the risk of simplifying the issue: I would say "why not?". What are the downsides?
This is professional sports, with a lot of (often public) money at stake, much more than in many other branches and businesses. And so doping/cheating your way to a win is a serious form of financial fraud. Why not criminalize it, so as to encourage investigations that actually lead somewhere. What is/are the downsides?

edit: having said that, I would agree it's a bit harsh for an amateur athlete to end up with a criminal record for taking a substance s/he didn't know was banned. But at least at a professional level I think criminalization is sensible and warranted. It would, however, require very fine-grained legislation. Not sure if possible to have different legislation for professionals than for amateurs?
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,578
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

25 Oct 2017 12:01

I would argue that doping is already criminalized in cases where professionals are involved.

Simply under "obtaining property through deception" or "fraud" for larger amounts.
User avatar Catwhoorg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,972
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 11:00
Location: Atlanta, GA

11 Nov 2017 13:21

In case you missed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPUoJ61sOEM

16.35mins in.

"apart from the child who supplies urine samples to the british cycling team".

Tells you all you need to know about the perception of cycling. Doping, doping, doping, doping.................
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,167
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

20 Nov 2017 23:15

British Cycling continued to work with the company (Fit4SportUK)that allegedly sent testosterone incorrectly to them, in 2011, for the next 6 years, terminating the relationship on Monday.

Edit: This company just went dark

https://twitter.com/Fit4SportUK
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,167
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

21 Nov 2017 00:04

Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...
User avatar 70kmph
Member
 
Posts: 507
Joined: 31 May 2010 00:06

Re:

21 Nov 2017 13:45

70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...



They sell to Leeds Rhinos, Lancashire CC and Manchester United.

Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,167
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

21 Nov 2017 18:02

Benotti69 wrote:
70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...



They sell to Leeds Rhinos, Lancashire CC and Manchester United.

Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.


That is why this story will continue to gain legs, there actually were illegal activities and those like Sam Hocking, et al, can march around with their, "Wiggins is exonerated!" banners but this really is the proverbial tip of the doping iceberg and the truth will come to light.
Ironhead Slim
Junior Member
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 07 Jul 2015 17:48

Re: Re:

21 Nov 2017 20:29

Ironhead Slim wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...



They sell to Leeds Rhinos, Lancashire CC and Manchester United.

Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.


That is why this story will continue to gain legs, there actually were illegal activities and those like Sam Hocking, et al, can march around with their, "Wiggins is exonerated!" banners but this really is the proverbial tip of the doping iceberg and the truth will come to light.


Sam can bleat all he likes, but Sky are digging deeper holes for themselves.

That Wiggins cant produce evidence he is a life long asthma sufferer really knocks the wind out any sails he may have had for an excuse for Kenacort, never mind that it is not prescribed in the UK by Doctors, even specialists and that Sky have been caught lying about it, never mind not having a TUE for the jiffybag Kenacort, never mind getting the testosterone from an illegal source. Wiggins has not mentioned in any of his books he is a long term asthma sufferer.

Amazing they never learnt the lessons from the Armstrong/Bruyneel errors they made and kept low a key media approach and just raced. Nope got greedy and egotisitical about it all.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,167
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

21 Nov 2017 23:49

Benotti69 wrote:
Ironhead Slim wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...



They sell to Leeds Rhinos, Lancashire CC and Manchester United.

Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.


That is why this story will continue to gain legs, there actually were illegal activities and those like Sam Hocking, et al, can march around with their, "Wiggins is exonerated!" banners but this really is the proverbial tip of the doping iceberg and the truth will come to light.


Sam can bleat all he likes, but Sky are digging deeper holes for themselves.

That Wiggins cant produce evidence he is a life long asthma sufferer really knocks the wind out any sails he may have had for an excuse for Kenacort, never mind that it is not prescribed in the UK by Doctors, even specialists and that Sky have been caught lying about it, never mind not having a TUE for the jiffybag Kenacort, never mind getting the testosterone from an illegal source. Wiggins has not mentioned in any of his books he is a long term asthma sufferer.

Amazing they never learnt the lessons from the Armstrong/Bruyneel errors they made and kept low a key media approach and just raced. Nope got greedy and egotisitical about it all.


No one suffers from asthma. You manage it. It’s not that hard to treat, it’s really simple in fact.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,702
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

22 Nov 2017 08:48

testosterone patches - skybots keep ignoring that
Digger
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,647
Joined: 10 May 2009 17:24

Re: Re:

22 Nov 2017 10:28

Benotti69 wrote:
70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...

...
Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.


To be fair the licence to sell online does cover 'general sales list' medicines, a category which probably includes a few PEDs. The client list has disappeared from the website but the PDF catalogue is still downloadable and that mentions all sorts of substances by name, including triamcinolone (as Kenalog).

I suppose that it is a bit strange that a company called "Fit 4 Sport" would routinely supply Kenalog and other corticosteroids but then it's not up to that company to tell customers when and how they should use it.
User avatar L'arriviste
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,013
Joined: 23 Feb 2010 13:14
Location: Belgium

Re: Re:

22 Nov 2017 14:00

L'arriviste wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
70kmph wrote:Turn on the shredder run for the hills, the feds are comin
There must be huge quantities of medicines ordered from these guys...

...
Apparently they do not have a pharmaceutical licence to sell testosterone patches.

Brailsford and co working will illegal dope(PED) pushers.


To be fair the licence to sell online does cover 'general sales list' medicines, a category which probably includes a few PEDs. The client list has disappeared from the website but the PDF catalogue is still downloadable and that mentions all sorts of substances by name, including triamcinolone (as Kenalog).

I suppose that it is a bit strange that a company called "Fit 4 Sport" would routinely supply Kenalog and other corticosteroids but then it's not up to that company to tell customers when and how they should use it.


I think that since the company went 'dark', it is because something is not legit or right.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,167
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Brits don't dope?

17 Dec 2017 21:59

Farah wins the BBC's SPOTY. I would have loved Farah, Peaty and Froome in no particular order as a 1,2,3.
buckle
Member
 
Posts: 652
Joined: 23 Jul 2012 17:42

Re: Brits don't dope?

17 Dec 2017 22:21

buckle wrote:Farah wins the BBC's SPOTY. I would have loved Farah, Peaty and Froome in no particular order as a 1,2,3.


According to the Daily Mail Radcliffe's husband mouthed "f*cking joke", I guess the Radcliffe's hate doping cheats
User avatar iejeecee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 03 Feb 2013 16:14
Location: Netherlands

Re: Brits don't dope?

17 Dec 2017 22:38

iejeecee wrote:
buckle wrote:Farah wins the BBC's SPOTY. I would have loved Farah, Peaty and Froome in no particular order as a 1,2,3.


According to the Daily Mail Radcliffe's husband mouthed "f*cking joke", I guess the Radcliffe's hate doping cheats


I thought her husband was his new marathon coach.
buckle
Member
 
Posts: 652
Joined: 23 Jul 2012 17:42

Re: Brits don't dope?

18 Dec 2017 10:56

"It's the worst thing to be accused of as a man of my integrity given what I believe and what I've done to get to where I am today," Wiggins said while appearing on Sky Sports' Soccer AM.

"But fortunately there is an investigation under way and I can't say too much but that will run its course.

"Eventually I will get my say and there is a lot to say.

"It's going to shock a few people."




Almost 9 months on and Wiggins has yet to reveal any of these 'shocking' revelations.

The Select committee have allowed Freeman to wriggle away by pulling a fake sickie without any questioning. They done a good job initially but once parliament broke they have done nothing since.

Then UKAD have done what they always do.....nothing! The whole episode stinks to high heaven from start to finish. British cycling and Sky have played for time by dragging out the whole affair hoping that it will go away eventually yet fail to provide answers to simple questions. Froome will do the same, it's a tactic that has worked in the past.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 695
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

Re: Brits don't dope?

18 Dec 2017 11:10

ontheroad wrote:"It's the worst thing to be accused of as a man of my integrity given what I believe and what I've done to get to where I am today," Wiggins said while appearing on Sky Sports' Soccer AM.

"But fortunately there is an investigation under way and I can't say too much but that will run its course.

"Eventually I will get my say and there is a lot to say.

"It's going to shock a few people."




Almost 9 months on and Wiggins has yet to reveal any of these 'shocking' revelations.

The Select committee have allowed Freeman to wriggle away by pulling a fake sickie without any questioning. They done a good job initially but once parliament broke they have done nothing since.

Then UKAD have done what they always do.....nothing! The whole episode stinks to high heaven from start to finish. British cycling and Sky have played for time by dragging out the whole affair hoping that it will go away eventually yet fail to provide answers to simple questions. Froome will do the same, it's a tactic that has worked in the past.


The problem with the whole Jiffy Bag saga was that the burden of proof always lay with UKAD. I know its incredibly frustrating and looks as though UKAD are completely ineffective, but really its the same as any other case, without proof and no matter how ridiculous the excuses sound, any attempt at legal sanction is almost doomed to fail. They know that, and in the absence of such proof it would be a foolish waste of resource to keep pursuing it.

But don't worry, Sky may have got a legal free pass on this, but that doesn't mean they didn't sustain serious damage as a result of the investigation. Everyone saw through their excuses, no one believed them, so the damage to their reputation is enormous. To this end, just by putting the questions into the public domain and letting the public see these ridiculous excuses i think UKAD played their part as well as they could really. A guilty verdict would just have been the icing on the cake.

Now, the whole Froome saga is very different on one key factor. Evidence, other than just rumour and hearsay of some wrongdoing does exist this time, he returned an AAF. Medical and scientific evidence.

The onus is now on Chris Froome to disprove this evidence.

From a legal standpoint this shift is seismic.
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 416
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Brits don't dope?

18 Dec 2017 12:02

brownbobby wrote:
ontheroad wrote:"It's the worst thing to be accused of as a man of my integrity given what I believe and what I've done to get to where I am today," Wiggins said while appearing on Sky Sports' Soccer AM.

"But fortunately there is an investigation under way and I can't say too much but that will run its course.

"Eventually I will get my say and there is a lot to say.

"It's going to shock a few people."




Almost 9 months on and Wiggins has yet to reveal any of these 'shocking' revelations.

The Select committee have allowed Freeman to wriggle away by pulling a fake sickie without any questioning. They done a good job initially but once parliament broke they have done nothing since.

Then UKAD have done what they always do.....nothing! The whole episode stinks to high heaven from start to finish. British cycling and Sky have played for time by dragging out the whole affair hoping that it will go away eventually yet fail to provide answers to simple questions. Froome will do the same, it's a tactic that has worked in the past.


The problem with the whole Jiffy Bag saga was that the burden of proof always lay with UKAD. I know its incredibly frustrating and looks as though UKAD are completely ineffective, but really its the same as any other case, without proof and no matter how ridiculous the excuses sound, any attempt at legal sanction is almost doomed to fail. They know that, and in the absence of such proof it would be a foolish waste of resource to keep pursuing it.

But don't worry, Sky may have got a legal free pass on this, but that doesn't mean they didn't sustain serious damage as a result of the investigation. Everyone saw through their excuses, no one believed them, so the damage to their reputation is enormous. To this end, just by putting the questions into the public domain and letting the public see these ridiculous excuses i think UKAD played their part as well as they could really. A guilty verdict would just have been the icing on the cake.

Now, the whole Froome saga is very different on one key factor. Evidence, other than just rumour and hearsay of some wrongdoing does exist this time, he returned an AAF. Medical and scientific evidence.

The onus is now on Chris Froome to disprove this evidence.

From a legal standpoint this shift is seismic.


There are still so many unanswered questions from the Jiffy Bag investigation. Freeman holds the key but has faked a couple of sickies, and the select committe whilst doing a very good job early on, have simple allowed this to die since they broke for a general election. If it weren't for the select committee holding them to account and a journalist breaking the story initially, UKAD would have uncovered absolutely nothing here.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 695
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

Re: Brits don't dope?

18 Dec 2017 13:55

brownbobby wrote:
ontheroad wrote:"It's the worst thing to be accused of as a man of my integrity given what I believe and what I've done to get to where I am today," Wiggins said while appearing on Sky Sports' Soccer AM.

"But fortunately there is an investigation under way and I can't say too much but that will run its course.

"Eventually I will get my say and there is a lot to say.

"It's going to shock a few people."




Almost 9 months on and Wiggins has yet to reveal any of these 'shocking' revelations.

The Select committee have allowed Freeman to wriggle away by pulling a fake sickie without any questioning. They done a good job initially but once parliament broke they have done nothing since.

Then UKAD have done what they always do.....nothing! The whole episode stinks to high heaven from start to finish. British cycling and Sky have played for time by dragging out the whole affair hoping that it will go away eventually yet fail to provide answers to simple questions. Froome will do the same, it's a tactic that has worked in the past.


The problem with the whole Jiffy Bag saga was that the burden of proof always lay with UKAD. I know its incredibly frustrating and looks as though UKAD are completely ineffective, but really its the same as any other case, without proof and no matter how ridiculous the excuses sound, any attempt at legal sanction is almost doomed to fail. They know that, and in the absence of such proof it would be a foolish waste of resource to keep pursuing it.

But don't worry, Sky may have got a legal free pass on this, but that doesn't mean they didn't sustain serious damage as a result of the investigation. Everyone saw through their excuses, no one believed them, so the damage to their reputation is enormous. To this end, just by putting the questions into the public domain and letting the public see these ridiculous excuses i think UKAD played their part as well as they could really. A guilty verdict would just have been the icing on the cake.

Now, the whole Froome saga is very different on one key factor. Evidence, other than just rumour and hearsay of some wrongdoing does exist this time, he returned an AAF. Medical and scientific evidence.

The onus is now on Chris Froome to disprove this evidence.

From a legal standpoint this shift is seismic.



People get found guilty every day in a court of law on circumstantial evidence alone. On circumstantial evidence Wiggins and Sky and British Cycling are all guilty as sin. So why must it end as it is now?
Craigee
Junior Member
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 06:18

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bambino, Google Adsense [Bot], meat puppet and 33 guests

Back to top