the supply of unlicensed medical products in UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-unlicensed-medicinal-products-specials
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-unlicensed-medicinal-products-specials
- Jun 3, 2009
- 631
- 138
- 10,180
thehog said:sniper said:
Right before the Tour, we'll get Wiggins a drug that could flare up his asthma, then we'll inject him with a high grade steroid, all in the name of his ailing sickness whilst smashing the season apart and winning also every race he went in
nail on head.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
Re: Re:
Actually no, I never claimed nobody uses it. I've backed up the claims in the Wiggins thread. Denial of what exactly? That this is used? Nope. That the story doesn't make sense? Nope. That Sky are likely doping? Nope.Mr.38% said:
Re: Re:
Surely no one in their right mind can believe that joke of a story? Why the committee didn't demand to know some basic facts like - why the initial secrecy; when, where, by whom was the flumacil purchased (and demand to see receipts); was there anything else in the package (and demand Brailsford state unequivocally that he doesn't know or didn't ask instead of letting him weasel out of it). And if he doesn't know and didn't ask, demand why not and summon the guy who did coz medical teams are only obliged not to release patient data, they can still discuss stuff like who bought what and when and why was it in a jiffy bag at all? I don't know about you but I'm not in the habit of carrying my medicines in a jiffy bag.
As for Brailsford's comment to try and kill the story...well, it's no surprise. It's clear from this answer alone that Brailsford will do whatever is expedient. I hope to see him go, but fear he will weather the storm because there just isn't enough of an appetite to discredit GB successes...because if DB and SS go, the lovely dream of the first TdF and the years of success at 'the Royal Mint' start to look more than a bit fishy, even to the general public.
Love to know who the mole is...clearly someone is unhappy.
thehog said:
Surely no one in their right mind can believe that joke of a story? Why the committee didn't demand to know some basic facts like - why the initial secrecy; when, where, by whom was the flumacil purchased (and demand to see receipts); was there anything else in the package (and demand Brailsford state unequivocally that he doesn't know or didn't ask instead of letting him weasel out of it). And if he doesn't know and didn't ask, demand why not and summon the guy who did coz medical teams are only obliged not to release patient data, they can still discuss stuff like who bought what and when and why was it in a jiffy bag at all? I don't know about you but I'm not in the habit of carrying my medicines in a jiffy bag.
As for Brailsford's comment to try and kill the story...well, it's no surprise. It's clear from this answer alone that Brailsford will do whatever is expedient. I hope to see him go, but fear he will weather the storm because there just isn't enough of an appetite to discredit GB successes...because if DB and SS go, the lovely dream of the first TdF and the years of success at 'the Royal Mint' start to look more than a bit fishy, even to the general public.
Love to know who the mole is...clearly someone is unhappy.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
They did ask Britsh Cycling to submit a letter with the contents of the package. UKAD apparently have the records from Brailsford.
I would suggest that whoever leaked the package story much have some form of evidence because the easiest method for Bruyneel would be to deny there ever was a package. Right from the start Brailsford has attempted to bury the story, then go silent and now made up a very innocuous and low-grade substance. He was also the only one prepared to say what it was, which mean the others were too frightened to state they knew what was in there. Or that there was Frumcil in the package which means he wasn't lying but there was also something else which he said "I hope not", which puts Freeman in the firing line.
Electress said:
They did ask Britsh Cycling to submit a letter with the contents of the package. UKAD apparently have the records from Brailsford.
I would suggest that whoever leaked the package story much have some form of evidence because the easiest method for Bruyneel would be to deny there ever was a package. Right from the start Brailsford has attempted to bury the story, then go silent and now made up a very innocuous and low-grade substance. He was also the only one prepared to say what it was, which mean the others were too frightened to state they knew what was in there. Or that there was Frumcil in the package which means he wasn't lying but there was also something else which he said "I hope not", which puts Freeman in the firing line.
Re: Re:
Submitting a letter with the contents of the package doesn't give a the complete paper trail. Nor address the human chain of custody. The only plausible reason for the delay IMO is that they were checking records to come up with the most innocuous substance which would tally with medical records, and maybe find out / judge / invesitage the extent of the leak.
How Cope's initial story fits in with this I've yet to even analyse. I have a vague memory this was supposed to be for someone else entirely...Christ, what a mess. C
thehog said:
Submitting a letter with the contents of the package doesn't give a the complete paper trail. Nor address the human chain of custody. The only plausible reason for the delay IMO is that they were checking records to come up with the most innocuous substance which would tally with medical records, and maybe find out / judge / invesitage the extent of the leak.
How Cope's initial story fits in with this I've yet to even analyse. I have a vague memory this was supposed to be for someone else entirely...Christ, what a mess. C
- Nov 5, 2013
- 5,287
- 5,067
- 23,180
Re:
Never tested positive.
Most tested team in cycling.
Cadence.
We like our credibility.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
red_flanders said:
Never tested positive.
Most tested team in cycling.
Cadence.
We like our credibility.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
- Nov 5, 2013
- 5,287
- 5,067
- 23,180
Re: Re:
Well, Fluimucil was available at 4 pharmacies near the race, but they had to get British Cycling to fly in the purest form of it or something...it's like heroin, not all heroin is equal.
Benotti69 said:
Well, Fluimucil was available at 4 pharmacies near the race, but they had to get British Cycling to fly in the purest form of it or something...it's like heroin, not all heroin is equal.
- Nov 5, 2013
- 5,287
- 5,067
- 23,180
Re: Re:
As it happens he also traveled back with Cope in the car.
Who was particularly unhappy not long ago and would have had plenty of reason to put some pressure on BC to show that he means business?Electress said:
As it happens he also traveled back with Cope in the car.
Let's say I'm running a big cycling team and I know damn well something illegal is going one, as that's a big part of the true business plan buried behind the "clean as can be"-PR business plan. What don't I want to know? Specifics. I need my plausible deniability specifically for incident like this one.
Do you know what was in the bag? I do not, but I'll ask my doctors.
And, what did you find out? Well, there was some innocent Fluimucil in the bag.
Something else? To the best of my knowledge, nothing else was in the bag.
I'm pretty sure Brailsford honestly doesn't know what was in the bag, factually speaking. I'm also sure he could probably make an educated guess, but if I were him, then I would never let myself be informed of specific cases like this one. Plausible deniability, you know. He's better off not knowing specifics and, in his position, he doesn't have to.
Do you know what was in the bag? I do not, but I'll ask my doctors.
And, what did you find out? Well, there was some innocent Fluimucil in the bag.
Something else? To the best of my knowledge, nothing else was in the bag.
I'm pretty sure Brailsford honestly doesn't know what was in the bag, factually speaking. I'm also sure he could probably make an educated guess, but if I were him, then I would never let myself be informed of specific cases like this one. Plausible deniability, you know. He's better off not knowing specifics and, in his position, he doesn't have to.
If he didn't know what was in the bag why did he try so hard to kill the story.
Coordinating and organising the doping is a major part of his job. That includes knowing (and sometimes even instructing) which rider takes what, when and where.
And Brailsford doesn't need plausible deniability.
Biarritz 2004.
Do you honestly believe Dave didn't know all about Millars program?
I mean I see the point about plausible deniability. I just don't think it applies to DB.
Coordinating and organising the doping is a major part of his job. That includes knowing (and sometimes even instructing) which rider takes what, when and where.
And Brailsford doesn't need plausible deniability.
Biarritz 2004.
Do you honestly believe Dave didn't know all about Millars program?
I mean I see the point about plausible deniability. I just don't think it applies to DB.
There is a difference between "knowing", as in deducing it yourself, and "knowing", as in being specifically told what was in this bag. I'm sure Brailsford knew enough to know that the discovery of this bag was very bad news, without having been specifically told what was in this bag.
In the first case he can deny, without giving a false statement, that he had specific knowledge of the contents of this particular bag; in the latter case, he can't. In both cases, he knew damn well what was going on.
It's not an unusual tactic outside of cycling: Do what you have to do, but don't give me the specifics.
In the first case he can deny, without giving a false statement, that he had specific knowledge of the contents of this particular bag; in the latter case, he can't. In both cases, he knew damn well what was going on.
It's not an unusual tactic outside of cycling: Do what you have to do, but don't give me the specifics.
Yeah I see your point and you may be right.
I just don't think DB minds giving false statements.
He's given plenty, e.g. in 2004 telling the world he didn't know Millar was doping. Or in 2012 wrt Lenders, not knowing cortisone is a ped, etc. Cherry picking really. He doesn't need plausible deniability. He's comfortable lying.
And my 2 cents is that he's been much more closely and directly involved in SkyBC doping than some here are willing to assume.
I just don't think DB minds giving false statements.
He's given plenty, e.g. in 2004 telling the world he didn't know Millar was doping. Or in 2012 wrt Lenders, not knowing cortisone is a ped, etc. Cherry picking really. He doesn't need plausible deniability. He's comfortable lying.
And my 2 cents is that he's been much more closely and directly involved in SkyBC doping than some here are willing to assume.
If any of you had ever seen the management and coaching videos that DB has made it is clear that his mantra is to know all that is going on and to be completely involved in the team and on a day to day basis with all the goings on in the team.
He speaks to this at length about how you can only communicate to the riders and bring the whole team together if you know what is going on. And not only with your job but with the team and the individuals in the team
There is a leadership coaching company that has all sorts of great sporting people that do videos for their program and this is what he preaches more than anything.
So to think he sits in an ivory tower and doesn't want to know anything about the specifics is rubbish.
Also it is not the style of the man
to listen to anyone that has known him he is detailed and driven and leaves nothing to chance.
He will have known every detail about who was on what and when and who would be strong for what race and for what stage. If you are running the team you need to know who is going to be strong enough to get into breaks - who is the chaperone for the leader, who should be helping on the flats or the mountains etc etc
You cant make all those judgements if you dont know who is strong and who is not and who is on what regime. - Unless you think they were all on the same regime so it didn't matter.
He speaks to this at length about how you can only communicate to the riders and bring the whole team together if you know what is going on. And not only with your job but with the team and the individuals in the team
There is a leadership coaching company that has all sorts of great sporting people that do videos for their program and this is what he preaches more than anything.
So to think he sits in an ivory tower and doesn't want to know anything about the specifics is rubbish.
Also it is not the style of the man
to listen to anyone that has known him he is detailed and driven and leaves nothing to chance.
He will have known every detail about who was on what and when and who would be strong for what race and for what stage. If you are running the team you need to know who is going to be strong enough to get into breaks - who is the chaperone for the leader, who should be helping on the flats or the mountains etc etc
You cant make all those judgements if you dont know who is strong and who is not and who is on what regime. - Unless you think they were all on the same regime so it didn't matter.
^Winner winner chicken dinner.
Moreover, there is hardly a photo of the Sky bus on tour that doesn't have DB in it. He's always there where the action is.
Moreover, there is hardly a photo of the Sky bus on tour that doesn't have DB in it. He's always there where the action is.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re:
Very true, Brailsford like Armstrong enjoys the game and winning over the crowd.. Brailsford thought at the Select Committee hearings he'd win everyone over, after the fumbling of British Cycling and then Sutton, in came Brailsford confidently, calmly with a smile and just like Lance on Ophrah within seconds he named what was in the package after weeks of speculation; he smiled thinking I've won them all over, job done, 'only I' can win the audience for I am Sir David! Alas that's not what happened. Over the course of the next few minutes as Brailsfords answers became longer and longer without actually providing any information no one in the room or watching could understand how or why a man who prides himself and his team on the details be so lacking in detail and have such a preposterous story on the package. The reason why the British public were won over on the marginal gains mantra was because it's simple for everyone to understand, it relies on common elements that every layman gets. But here with this package, they managed to turn something simple - the delivery of medical package - into a convoluted story with so much vagueness, so many open doors and holes along with absurd reasoning for travelling 1000km to deliver an envelope of decongestant that no one knows what to believe.
sniper said:
Very true, Brailsford like Armstrong enjoys the game and winning over the crowd.. Brailsford thought at the Select Committee hearings he'd win everyone over, after the fumbling of British Cycling and then Sutton, in came Brailsford confidently, calmly with a smile and just like Lance on Ophrah within seconds he named what was in the package after weeks of speculation; he smiled thinking I've won them all over, job done, 'only I' can win the audience for I am Sir David! Alas that's not what happened. Over the course of the next few minutes as Brailsfords answers became longer and longer without actually providing any information no one in the room or watching could understand how or why a man who prides himself and his team on the details be so lacking in detail and have such a preposterous story on the package. The reason why the British public were won over on the marginal gains mantra was because it's simple for everyone to understand, it relies on common elements that every layman gets. But here with this package, they managed to turn something simple - the delivery of medical package - into a convoluted story with so much vagueness, so many open doors and holes along with absurd reasoning for travelling 1000km to deliver an envelope of decongestant that no one knows what to believe.
- People are missing the most important and obvious information in the puzzle - 'The whistleblower' - One sincerely hopes the whistleblower knows exactly the name of the substance and whether it is on the banned list - If so the whistleblower makes an admission to UKAD - This is done and then the case is done and dusted - One has to question why the whistleblower has gone to the media, instead of the relevant doping authority - Or maybe the doping authority turned a blind eye - But ultimately it's in the hands of the whistleblower
Re:
yaco, you are missing the most important and obvious information in the puzzle: there is no whistleblower.
yaco, you are missing the most important and obvious information in the puzzle: there is no whistleblower.
- Aug 12, 2009
- 2,814
- 110
- 11,680
Re: Re:
whilst MPs may not be totally up to speed on doping they know and deal in obfuscation everyday of their lives
as the saying goes, takes a bullshi*ter to know a bullshi*ter
and they knew one yesterday
thehog said:
whilst MPs may not be totally up to speed on doping they know and deal in obfuscation everyday of their lives
as the saying goes, takes a bullshi*ter to know a bullshi*ter
and they knew one yesterday
- Aug 12, 2009
- 2,814
- 110
- 11,680
Re:
I'm not sure the whistleblower is important...with such a tangled web of deceit you will always come unstuck...with LA it was not giving Landis a job, with SKY this may be it....it now doesn't even matter if there was a jiffy bag or not...the response is what will get you...same as Watergate...forget the crime...its the response to the crime that will do for you....
of course the reason that the lesson is never learned is that plenty who front it out get away with it...Sir Dave hoping Seb and Paula's luck rubs off on him
yaco said:
I'm not sure the whistleblower is important...with such a tangled web of deceit you will always come unstuck...with LA it was not giving Landis a job, with SKY this may be it....it now doesn't even matter if there was a jiffy bag or not...the response is what will get you...same as Watergate...forget the crime...its the response to the crime that will do for you....
of course the reason that the lesson is never learned is that plenty who front it out get away with it...Sir Dave hoping Seb and Paula's luck rubs off on him
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram