imo it's a conflict of interest to be a sky employee and at the same time perform any kind of duties for UKAD. The double affiliation causes the CoI. Not a grave one, but an obvious one, and another one.Catwhoorg said:Is it possible that he only sits on TUE judgement for sports that he has no active interests ?
Shouldn't you actually try to find a little more out before throwing accusations of corruption ?
sniper said:this.The Carrot said:Google ain't bust, just couldn't find anything on the UK Sport panel as opposed to the UKADA TUE panel. Assuming Peters in a member of the latter, I still think he's too close to be reviewing even an academy or Olympic Development rider's TUE. This is the pool where 'the chosen ones' are selected 'ever so quickly' to become fully fledged members of the British Cycling team. That'll be the same team that Peters built his reputation on, the one he is still involved with (according to his bio).
And regardless what he's doing, Peters iis a Sky employee doing tasks for the UKAD. It's a conflict of interest even if Peters is only cleaning the toilets there.
Why did they come to Peters to do this job anyway?
No other docs qualified enough to make TUE recommendations?
It's such a corrupt incestuous lot, Sky, BC, UKAD. This is just another, even if only minor, illustration.
of course, just like doping happens in many, many countries.King Boonen said:sniper said:this.The Carrot said:Google ain't bust, just couldn't find anything on the UK Sport panel as opposed to the UKADA TUE panel. Assuming Peters in a member of the latter, I still think he's too close to be reviewing even an academy or Olympic Development rider's TUE. This is the pool where 'the chosen ones' are selected 'ever so quickly' to become fully fledged members of the British Cycling team. That'll be the same team that Peters built his reputation on, the one he is still involved with (according to his bio).
And regardless what he's doing, Peters iis a Sky employee doing tasks for the UKAD. It's a conflict of interest even if Peters is only cleaning the toilets there.
Why did they come to Peters to do this job anyway?
No other docs qualified enough to make TUE recommendations?
It's such a corrupt incestuous lot, Sky, BC, UKAD. This is just another, even if only minor, illustration.
I would hazard a guess that this occurs in many, many countries. I would also guess that any conflicts are well known, declared and it's likely he's not involved in the decision making process regarding any athlete he is consulting with, either directly or through their team.
King Boonen said:sniper said:this.The Carrot said:Google ain't bust, just couldn't find anything on the UK Sport panel as opposed to the UKADA TUE panel. Assuming Peters in a member of the latter, I still think he's too close to be reviewing even an academy or Olympic Development rider's TUE. This is the pool where 'the chosen ones' are selected 'ever so quickly' to become fully fledged members of the British Cycling team. That'll be the same team that Peters built his reputation on, the one he is still involved with (according to his bio).
And regardless what he's doing, Peters iis a Sky employee doing tasks for the UKAD. It's a conflict of interest even if Peters is only cleaning the toilets there.
Why did they come to Peters to do this job anyway?
No other docs qualified enough to make TUE recommendations?
It's such a corrupt incestuous lot, Sky, BC, UKAD. This is just another, even if only minor, illustration.
I would hazard a guess that this occurs in many, many countries. I would also guess that any conflicts are well known, declared and it's likely he's not involved in the decision making process regarding any athlete he is consulting with, either directly or through their team.
sniper said:of course, just like doping happens in many, many countries.King Boonen said:sniper said:this.The Carrot said:Google ain't bust, just couldn't find anything on the UK Sport panel as opposed to the UKADA TUE panel. Assuming Peters in a member of the latter, I still think he's too close to be reviewing even an academy or Olympic Development rider's TUE. This is the pool where 'the chosen ones' are selected 'ever so quickly' to become fully fledged members of the British Cycling team. That'll be the same team that Peters built his reputation on, the one he is still involved with (according to his bio).
And regardless what he's doing, Peters iis a Sky employee doing tasks for the UKAD. It's a conflict of interest even if Peters is only cleaning the toilets there.
Why did they come to Peters to do this job anyway?
No other docs qualified enough to make TUE recommendations?
It's such a corrupt incestuous lot, Sky, BC, UKAD. This is just another, even if only minor, illustration.
I would hazard a guess that this occurs in many, many countries. I would also guess that any conflicts are well known, declared and it's likely he's not involved in the decision making process regarding any athlete he is consulting with, either directly or through their team.
that's the point.
these threads are so long because British sports still have this "brits don't dope cuz we're holier than the pope" thing going that desperately needs debunking.
(cf. e.g. Salzwedel: "I wanted clean athletes for T-mobile and therefore I went to Britain")
The Carrot said:King Boonen said:sniper said:this.The Carrot said:Google ain't bust, just couldn't find anything on the UK Sport panel as opposed to the UKADA TUE panel. Assuming Peters in a member of the latter, I still think he's too close to be reviewing even an academy or Olympic Development rider's TUE. This is the pool where 'the chosen ones' are selected 'ever so quickly' to become fully fledged members of the British Cycling team. That'll be the same team that Peters built his reputation on, the one he is still involved with (according to his bio).
And regardless what he's doing, Peters iis a Sky employee doing tasks for the UKAD. It's a conflict of interest even if Peters is only cleaning the toilets there.
Why did they come to Peters to do this job anyway?
No other docs qualified enough to make TUE recommendations?
It's such a corrupt incestuous lot, Sky, BC, UKAD. This is just another, even if only minor, illustration.
I would hazard a guess that this occurs in many, many countries. I would also guess that any conflicts are well known, declared and it's likely he's not involved in the decision making process regarding any athlete he is consulting with, either directly or through their team.
You could well be right, but he is (and has been) involved with a lot of sports; cycling, football, Taekwondo, Canoeing, Snooker, England Rugby. That would therefore severely limit the amount of cases he would actually be eligible to sit in on (if Potential COIs are declared) and I'm guessing he ain't cheap.
sniper said:i noticed Peters is also an expert witness for WADA.
not sure what to make of that.
let's say it won't hurt Sky to have this guy on the payroll.
cheers, KB.King Boonen said:He could well do that, I really don't know much about him, but if he does then I'd have thought he'd target bigger sports than cycling, but it's a fair point.
I don't think WADA have a list of expert witnesses publicly available do they? At least, not in the sense of these are the guys they call for such and such. I'm sure they will have a list of experts in particular fields they use for cases, but expert witnesses are outside consultants so I'm not sure we could find a list to check and it will no doubt be ever changing. Expert witnesses are also governed by conflict of interest rules so that will come into play. I wouldn't be surprised if other teams did have doctors who had testified for WADA though.
King Boonen said:It's certainly interesting, might be worth looking at...
peloton said:Couldn't find the Walsh thread, but fits here too![]()
![]()
Voilá![]()
![]()
peloton said:Couldn't find the Walsh thread, but fits here too![]()
![]()
Voilá![]()
![]()
peloton said:I'll never forget Walsh's comment how the Vuelta podium -12 was doping, because of Spain having no real testing and how they climbed so fast. It was so funny.
Froome was 4th![]()
heart_attack_man said:peloton said:I'll never forget Walsh's comment how the Vuelta podium -12 was doping, because of Spain having no real testing and how they climbed so fast. It was so funny.
Froome was 4th![]()
He was called a troll over Armstrong, but I'd repeat that with that comment on the Vuelta Podium. Trolley McTroll from Trollsborough, Trollsington. Not that I don't think the podium was doping - of course I do...
I guess it's hard when a big pay day comes, like Seven Deadly Sins was, to then go back to a normal pay day... Keep pushing the "dream" to the gullible and keep cashing the cheques.
I like G too, and did not see today's stage but I had to do a double take when I saw the results sheet a little while ago. I agree, this is not normal at all.hfer07 said:Like I wrote on the ToS stage 5 thread- I've always considered "G" a good climber, but what bothers me is the so called "SKY trade mark for shedding massive weight while increasing PTWR- in matter of MONTHS"...... Again I do actually like G a lot, but today was kind of strange to see him climbing that well among pure climbers..... ....... "Not Normal"