The mere fact that there was a DCMS hearing on Team Sky and a GMC hearing on Team Sky's doctor is a sure sign that there really is nothing to see and we should all move on
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
DCMS report in relation to Jiggygate is entirely based on 'If Sutton sold Lawton the truth' and 'if this had happened in this theoretical circumstance that has no evidence to support it, it would cross an ethical line beyond WADA code'.The mere fact that there was a DCMS hearing on Team Sky and a GMC hearing on Team Sky's doctor is a sure sign that there really is nothing to see and we should all move on
Sam...please catch up......doping used to be undertaken by the rider...doping is now having a "medical reason" to take substances which improve performance...that is why Freeman sought that non-compliant certain doctors were removed and more compliant ones installed. Its the docs that enable...the riders are removed from the responsibility....if you can't read that from between the lines from the e-mail below then.....er....what is the Ullrich quote??? lolSo long as the medical reason was justified, that's EXACTLY why the TUE exist, so the rider can take the substance you or I could and go to work with in our system. To know something was 'bypassed' requires more than assumption. The TUE doesn't exist to not be used does it. It is there to be used by riders, in races otherwise it would never have been part of WADA in the first place.
lol...who needs a court to decide what went on...we're the jury...we can see the evidenceYou need to catch up this will go nowhere but a higher court unless Jackson can actually deal with the charges!
lol...who needs a court to decide what went on...we're the jury...we can see the evidence
Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?outside twitter and the Clinic, are the main news outlets in UK on it?
Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?
The BBC's there. The Guardian''s there. The Mail's there. They're the ones you're getting the story from. They're not main outlets in the UK?
Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.AFAIK doping isnt a legal matter in the UK, and no the news is barely reporting tge tribunal
...(post a watch of the Untouchabes out of respect for the bold Sean).....and Capone was just a tax evader...yes?Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.
Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.
I'm using the term in the sense that doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision. The substance and conditions of using it is very clear in being either prohibited or not prohibited. Even a TUE is not decided ethically, it's a medical process using rules.
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:
• Ethics, fair play and honesty
And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.
TUE is doping if you don't have doc sign off.....And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.
TUE is doping if you don't have doc sign off.....
lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lolsOf course, but a TUE still isn't decided using ethics, it's decided using medical diagnosis and justification against ISTUE Protocol by the TUEC signing it off.
That was 'personal' ethics, nothing to do with WADA's. This is my entire point. Freemans ethics were within WADA's definition what is not cheating and not doping, be it the teams IV protocol in light of Gonzalez death arguably exacerbated by Dr Hulse refusing to use IV and Needles on staff/riders in exactly the same as a doctors persona ethics might not ethically agree with WADA's or that a TUE is allowed when it satisfies ISTUE.lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lols
Name the last ADRV and its sanction that was decided using ethics and spirit of the sport to tip the balance from innocent to guilty then Merckx? You won't find one because doping is always only ever legal matter of what the rules say is cheating and doping, not an ethical judgement.
The Panel is satisfied that Mr. Petacchi is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance.