Pulling a Wiggins

[yaco]

Re: Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

Landis doesn't fit the classic description of a whistleblower though. He cheated to win the Tour and would have done it seven times or more if he could have gotten away with it. He's more like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

The Tagart version of history where everyone was an unwitting pawn of Lance and Bruyneel stinks. The report painted Zabriskie as some sort of tragic, corrupted innocent when he was just a opportunistic cheat like the rest of them.

Nailed it with your post - It's a weakness of the USA system that a confirmed cheat may receive a reward - It's crazy.

its a weakness of the global anti doping system that meant it needed a whistleblower to uncover a huge PED program being done under the noses and in front of the noses of the whole sport and world

the argument about rewarding whistleblowers is a different one that transcends sport and by definition a lot of whislteblowers will be guilty of misdemeanors because they know the story....

Whistle-blowers = financial reward is very much an American phenomenon - And the financial reward pertains to any type of industry - It's not solely cycling.

 

[yaco]

Wiggins deserves the criticism for commenting on Landis' mental health but do not give me this paragon of virtue with Landis considering his past behaviour too. He was Lance Armstrong, whistleblower or not.

Encouraging whistleblowing is one thing, yet the financial aspect of it is the only reason Landis has come forward. I don't think he cares in the slightest about the welfare of the sport. He had this idea from Prentice Steffen when Lim told him about it years previously before he came clean. When he had nowhere to go after not getting a ride with Radioshack, he then decides to initiate it.

I consider Kimmage and the Stepanovas as whistleblowers in sport who did it for the right reasons. Landis no, the complete opposite.

In the context of sport, motives are key to judge and discuss.

The rewards were there for Landis when he got busted. He could have come clean then, reduced ban and he could have rode the Tour again. He refused and fought the process in every way possible.

Civil restitution and remedy is the cornerstone of tort law in western democracies. People come forward at great risk (and become unemployable) and are assisted by Governments to correct the misuse of public money.

That has occurred here. In the UK this could not happen, punitive damages are rarely given only loss. However the US government should always restitute whistleblowers, especially in the cases where public money is involved.

I have no idea why anyone would object to such a foundation.

It's simple - You shouldn't need a financial incentive to come forward - And in Landis' case its contradictory because as part of the US Postal team he benefited from the fraudelent use of the public money - So be part of the rort and then be rewarded - Only in the USA.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Just waiting for some poster to say that Bryan Steel is enforcing the omerta.

Probably just angling for a gig at TeamWigans.

Steel's interview, was that tongue in cheek?
Such a clumsy interview you'd think it was intentionally clumsy.
Not necessarily doing Wiggins or BC a favor there.

Steel btw was teammates with a certain Simon Lillistone back in the 90s.
Lillistone who drove 1,000 miles with his wife Emma O'Reilly with a package for Lance that both she and he claimed they "did not know the contents" of. Until 9 odd years later of course.
Reminded me of well you know what.

Wonder who is BC going to wheel out next in defense of Sir Brad.
Rob Hayles?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

Landis doesn't fit the classic description of a whistleblower though. He cheated to win the Tour and would have done it seven times or more if he could have gotten away with it. He's more like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

The Tagart version of history where everyone was an unwitting pawn of Lance and Bruyneel stinks. The report painted Zabriskie as some sort of tragic, corrupted innocent when he was just a opportunistic cheat like the rest of them.

Nailed it with your post - It's a weakness of the USA system that a confirmed cheat may receive a reward - It's crazy.

its a weakness of the global anti doping system that meant it needed a whistleblower to uncover a huge PED program being done under the noses and in front of the noses of the whole sport and world

the argument about rewarding whistleblowers is a different one that transcends sport and by definition a lot of whislteblowers will be guilty of misdemeanors because they know the story....

Whistle-blowers = financial reward is very much an American phenomenon - And the financial reward pertains to any type of industry - It's not solely cycling.

Not sure many whistleblowers have have been rewarded financially, it tends to be the opposite. Can you point to some well known examples of whistleblowers reaping financial rewards?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Just waiting for some poster to say that Bryan Steel is enforcing the omerta.

Probably just angling for a gig at TeamWigans.

Steel's interview, was that tongue in cheek?
Such a clumsy interview you'd think it was intentionally clumsy.
Not necessarily doing Wiggins or BC a favor there.

Steel btw was teammates with a certain Simon Lillistone back in the 90s.
Lillistone who drove 1,000 miles with his wife Emma O'Reilly with a package for Lance that both she and he claimed they "did not know the contents" of. Until 9 odd years later of course.
Reminded me of well you know what.

Wonder who is BC going to wheel out next in defense of Sir Brad.
Rob Hayles?

yup...thinking Brad is thinking "Bl**dy Hell...thanks Bryan"

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Whistle-blowers = financial reward is very much an American phenomenon - And the financial reward pertains to any type of industry - It's not solely cycling.

Not sure many whistleblowers have have been rewarded financially, it tends to be the opposite. Can you point to some well known examples of whistleblowers reaping financial rewards?

Yes, but only 2 (possibly a couple others if I checked) and I don't agree with Yaco's point or think that these would add weight to it as the rewards are not primary from the actual whistleblowing. Jeffrey Wigand and Cynthia Cooper. I'd have to check the other two, they were the Enron whistleblower and the FBI agent who told us that the US government didn't act on knowledge of one of the 9/11 attackers.

 

[doperhopper]

that Steel's interview is pure Comedy Central gold (I know him, he does not dope)... and yeat another great excuse (actually, used before I think by Basso - I only intended to dope)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/i-know-wiggins-never-doped-says-former-teammate/----

Steel went on to say that it is possible that Wiggins hadn’t taken the medication and a TUE was applied for ‘just in case.’

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Whistle-blowers = financial reward is very much an American phenomenon - And the financial reward pertains to any type of industry - It's not solely cycling.

Not sure many whistleblowers have have been rewarded financially, it tends to be the opposite. Can you point to some well known examples of whistleblowers reaping financial rewards?

Yes, but only 2 (possibly a couple others if I checked) and I don't agree with Yaco's point or think that these would add weight to it as the rewards are not primary from the actual whistleblowing. Jeffrey Wigand and Cynthia Cooper. I'd have to check the other two, they were the Enron whistleblower and the FBI agent who told us that the US government didn't act on knowledge of one of the 9/11 attackers.

I was talking sport, but if you want to widen it out to things like 911, the thread will quickly go off topic.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Whistle-blowers = financial reward is very much an American phenomenon - And the financial reward pertains to any type of industry - It's not solely cycling.

Not sure many whistleblowers have have been rewarded financially, it tends to be the opposite. Can you point to some well known examples of whistleblowers reaping financial rewards?

Yes, but only 2 (possibly a couple others if I checked) and I don't agree with Yaco's point or think that these would add weight to it as the rewards are not primary from the actual whistleblowing. Jeffrey Wigand and Cynthia Cooper. I'd have to check the other two, they were the Enron whistleblower and the FBI agent who told us that the US government didn't act on knowledge of one of the 9/11 attackers.

I was talking sport, but if you want to widen it out to things like 911, the thread will quickly go off topic.

Like I said, I don't think they back up Yaco's point, but that's why I named them to attempt to head off the argument. They're the most famous ones I can think of (in fact the only ones to be honest). Wigand was big tobacco so possibly an even case of Whistleblowing than Cooper.

 

[yaco]

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Especially if people actually think it was a Senate committee...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

correct...I'm especially liking the mails between Coe and the same committee and the sign off from Collins "In order to reduce any confusion about your willingness to assist the Committee and the concerns we intend to raise we will publish your letter of 16th January to us and this letter"

i think Collins believes in the 'give 'em enough rope' principal...I like him

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

correct...I'm especially liking the mails between Coe and the same committee and the sign off from Collins "In order to reduce any confusion about your willingness to assist the Committee and the concerns we intend to raise we will publish your letter of 16th January to us and this letter"

i think Collins believes in the 'give 'em enough rope' principal...I like him

Collins seems to be up for it.

Public money has been used to sponsor a doping program and it doesn't look like the MPs are going to turn a blind eye.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

How can the package be "exposed completely"? A few people know what was in it and no one can prove they're currently lying.

 

[IndianCyclist]

As there is no paper trail, it is not possible to do or learn anything about this particular package. Of course a number of people are lying. however using this as an excuse, they can do a medical inventory audit and figure out what was consumed which would particularly highlight any medical abuses. At the very least a financial audit can prove unaccounted or misc expenses which can then be related to financial irregularities.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

How can the package be "exposed completely"? A few people know what was in it and no one can prove they're currently lying.

as we have seen with the exchange with Coe, where there is a will there is a way....that BC, UKAD and the UCI have no will is a given...this is what the the current system relies on. Collins etc work outwith that system and so this is a problem for Brailsford and hopefully, with this additional layer of scrutiny, his web of deceit will receive will come back to bite him....

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

As there is no paper trail, it is not possible to do or learn anything about this particular package. Of course a number of people are lying. however using this as an excuse, they can do a medical inventory audit and figure out what was consumed which would particularly highlight any medical abuses. At the very least a financial audit can prove unaccounted or misc expenses which can then be related to financial irregularities.

Deloitte audits the accounts of the holding company for the WT licence;

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/A3athEyzuv095AtK6GS_QIYavixdPQ5C1HeL9GMO6A8/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJ7M5JVITP7QFVW4A&Expires=1485293618&Signature=y5AZZl7LIfjRz1TD1XCHcUW5FVM%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzENz%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDERvA20MGbonCEK5ayKcA1k77htyPErgMejiLXaI8VUYpqWbXZwnWiE%2Fagq3BSyyJ%2FmV%2FQb1gc6rLtHLuyvWPwIccywVG3BGGi4rgM7a1bUrIdV7V1sEXRnkk9K8kmCin%2BMvO10tDBHKBKCmaunK7BdX1HgNgfzyNza6IGdcvvOb7lNdtYoNCz0Lynfc5np9FywBYi0DnagW9keTzc0Kcn7DLOpZgRvWGoiJDib3ET2Z%2BSX2qse39nqMOzKL5Rxh%2B48M2uaDmMCLOrXf%2FuIA8x%2BPTb4hMCfOhdOLZ0oG%2FrxQHph1JOh3v6SLaB%2B298tjRnZ00ZWsSeX3A8NgQKArRmvCbuH9Q7iWH3LPwYWg7JgFoH6LBJfOI1Pht6yEG2Are6KgScluasce2UWsdzbD9IGu3Ok5LlZvWK7M7xPi1feH7OPpGztjFLy%2F%2FNb6acLxulolbm%2BBzctWkzNgCOwFSrdFnf5ZB7G1%2BRhCxwmlQVcQ52f8NxTEHTVd1b2mD4epf1uijCJUBtDqr5OP5dtCN3i4TEjR2%2F%2ByL2yzP2ciTe4zI2xILrc7E4YUubko%2BLqexAU%3D

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

Her testimony sheds no light on the contents of the mystery package - That's what UKAD need to prove, no matter how much cheer leading goes on in public.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Especially if people actually think it was a Senate committee...

It's generically termed a Parliamentary Committee.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

As there is no paper trail, it is not possible to do or learn anything about this particular package. Of course a number of people are lying. however using this as an excuse, they can do a medical inventory audit and figure out what was consumed which would particularly highlight any medical abuses. At the very least a financial audit can prove unaccounted or misc expenses which can then be related to financial irregularities.

Do you actually understand what an audit is meant to do, what it does, or are you just saying the first thing that enters your mind?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Especially if people actually think it was a Senate committee...

It's generically termed a Parliamentary Committee.

So not a Senate committee, generically or any way...

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

How can the package be "exposed completely"? A few people know what was in it and no one can prove they're currently lying.

Others know. Be patient, the ones capable of ignoring this are not the ones looking at it anymore. Smoke, fire. Once these inquiries begin other things pop up. Unless, of course, Wiggins is all perfectly clean and tidy and there really is nothing to this. Do you really think that is what this looks like?

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

Her testimony sheds no light on the contents of the mystery package - That's what UKAD need to prove, no matter how much cheer leading goes on in public.

Her testimony shows how f'd up the whole BC/Sky thing is. Forget about UKAD. Outsiders are looking into it now.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Anyway listening to Cooke's testimony to the Senate committee give us a good idea as to why the investigation into the mystery package will probably go nowhere.

Her testimony tells us why it typically would go nowhere, but her testimony will itself be the reason why this story does not end until the package is exposed completely. UKAD cannot privately sweep this under the rug with so many watching. C'mon, cheer up this is good news!

How can the package be "exposed completely"? A few people know what was in it and no one can prove they're currently lying.

Others know. Be patient, the ones capable of ignoring this are not the ones looking at it anymore. Smoke, fire. Once these inquiries begin other things pop up. Unless, of course, Wiggins is all perfectly clean and tidy and there really is nothing to this. Do you really think that is what this looks like?

No, I don't. I just doubt whether anyone has the leverage to find out what was really in there. I like your optimism, but don't share it.

Zero chance I thought Wiggins was clean before any of this started. He's one of the most comically obvious dopers I've ever seen.