Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The DM allegation is Wiggins was injected (we assume with Fluimicil given UKAD allowed Brailsford to say what it was in a letter handed to him) just 1 month after UCI introduced no-needle policy at Giro. Even if Sky didn't contort their story in those first few days so randomly, injecting Fluimcil is clearly not turning 2x donkeys into (dominant) GT winners as you put it, any more than a TUE for Triamcinolone does either. We know both substances are used by those competing against Sky, so where is the difference? This is what I mean by the scope of the UKAD investigation. Hoping for anything more than an injection of Fluimicil after Dauphine is just that given what the allegation's scope in the first place is.

Don't give up! :lol:

If nothing but fluimicil really was transported all the way from Manchester then serious questions need to be asked about WTF BC and Sky are doing with their lottery funding. If such frivolous courier trips can be made instead of a 5 minute drive to the local pharmacy, who knows what other ways government directed funds are being misappropriated...

even more simply....if it was nothing but fluimicil there would not be a story, not even a inkling of one, we would not even be here and we would not be having a parliamentary investigation.........

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It's next to impossible for UKAD to charge Sky over the 'mystery package' unless they have indisputable evidence of the contents of the package. The CMS committee is irrelevant because it's merely a chance for blind and deaf politicians to gain there 15 minutes of fame.


P

and yet, they have shed a light into where the anti doping agencies have not

not bad for a bunch of cretins who have a different day job....

The same cretins who were cheerleaders during this whole reign of suspicious activities by Sky and British Cycling.

The same cretins who at the same time generously funded these organisations.

The same cretins who are now grandstanding to gain popular support.

Let's see if and what changes are made to Sky and British Cycling.

as the old saying goes...even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

It's next to impossible for UKAD to charge Sky over the 'mystery package' unless they have indisputable evidence of the contents of the package. The CMS committee is irrelevant because it's merely a chance for blind and deaf politicians to gain there 15 minutes of fame.


P

and yet, they have shed a light into where the anti doping agencies have not

not bad for a bunch of cretins who have a different day job....

The same cretins who were cheerleaders during this whole reign of suspicious activities by Sky and British Cycling.

The same cretins who at the same time generously funded these organisations.

The same cretins who are now grandstanding to gain popular support.

Let's see if and what changes are made to Sky and British Cycling.

as the old saying goes...even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

Unfortunately the truth hurts. Anyway you continue to have faith in politicians and Governments. The evidence is overwhelming that in some occasions they enable doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

It's next to impossible for UKAD to charge Sky over the 'mystery package' unless they have indisputable evidence of the contents of the package. The CMS committee is irrelevant because it's merely a chance for blind and deaf politicians to gain there 15 minutes of fame.


P

and yet, they have shed a light into where the anti doping agencies have not

not bad for a bunch of cretins who have a different day job....

The same cretins who were cheerleaders during this whole reign of suspicious activities by Sky and British Cycling.

The same cretins who at the same time generously funded these organisations.

The same cretins who are now grandstanding to gain popular support.

Let's see if and what changes are made to Sky and British Cycling.

as the old saying goes...even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

Unfortunately the truth hurts. Anyway you continue to have faith in politicians and Governments. The evidence is overwhelming that in some occasions they enable doping.

Damian Collins is not the government. He is 1 politician who appears to be doing his job correctly, for a change and no doubt to further his career in the process. If that benefits the sport by exposing frauds and cheats, hurrah!

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

It's next to impossible for UKAD to charge Sky over the 'mystery package' unless they have indisputable evidence of the contents of the package. The CMS committee is irrelevant because it's merely a chance for blind and deaf politicians to gain there 15 minutes of fame.


P

and yet, they have shed a light into where the anti doping agencies have not

not bad for a bunch of cretins who have a different day job....

The same cretins who were cheerleaders during this whole reign of suspicious activities by Sky and British Cycling.

The same cretins who at the same time generously funded these organisations.

The same cretins who are now grandstanding to gain popular support.

Let's see if and what changes are made to Sky and British Cycling.

as the old saying goes...even a broken clock is correct twice a day....

Unfortunately the truth hurts. Anyway you continue to have faith in politicians and Governments. The evidence is overwhelming that in some occasions they enable doping.

i'm not sure you quite get the meaning of the "old saying"...it specifically, in this instance, means that I have no faith but that occasionally they get something right.......

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Damian Collins is not the government. He is 1 politician who appears to be doing his job correctly, for a change and no doubt to further his career in the process. If that benefits the sport by exposing frauds and cheats, hurrah!

agreed.
I hope he manages to stay on the same track he's been on in the past couple of months which has been like a breath of fresh air amidst so much corruption and so many people within UK Sports taking the piss and insulting our brains.
I hope he stays true and if he does I thoroughly hope he benefits from it career-wise, although if he does bring the house down, I doubt it will make him many friends.

Either way, without his efforts we would be in one dark *** place right now.

 

[fmk_RoI]

UKAD's extensive investigation into the package (sometimes referred to "the Jiffy bag") delivered to Team Sky during the 2011 Critérium du Dauphiné cycling race in France has concluded.

No anti-doping charges will be brought in relation to the package as a result of that investigation and all interested parties have been informed accordingly. This will remain the case unless new and material evidence were to come to light.

Deets

 

[fmk_RoI]

Sky's response:

UK Anti-Doping has today confirmed that it does not intend to bring forward any anti-doping charges in relation to its investigation into issues around the 2011 Criterium du Dauphine. This investigation has now been brought to a close.

We are pleased that UK Anti-Doping have concluded their investigation and that they will not be taking any further action.

We have always maintained that there was no wrongdoing and we have co-operated fully with UK Anti-Doping over the last year.

Since our inception as a new pro cycling team in 2010 we have continually strengthened our systems and processes so they best support our strong commitment to anti-doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

BC's response:

UKAD’s findings represent an organisation and culture that, despite delivering on the world stage, did not meet the high standards that British Cycling today holds itself to. We note that UKAD have referred information arising from their investigation to the General Medical Council and we offer them our wholehearted cooperation.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

BC's response:

UKAD’s findings represent an organisation and culture that, despite delivering on the world stage, did not meet the high standards that British Cycling today holds itself to. We note that UKAD have referred information arising from their investigation to the General Medical Council and we offer them our wholehearted cooperation.

Freeman the fall guy then

I wonder how much Sky paid him to take the flack including pulling a perpetual sicky

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

BC's response:

UKAD’s findings represent an organisation and culture that, despite delivering on the world stage, did not meet the high standards that British Cycling today holds itself to. We note that UKAD have referred information arising from their investigation to the General Medical Council and we offer them our wholehearted cooperation.

Freeman the fall guy then

I wonder how much Sky paid him to take the flack including pulling a perpetual sicky

some allegation to make

 

[B_Ugli]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

BC's response:

UKAD’s findings represent an organisation and culture that, despite delivering on the world stage, did not meet the high standards that British Cycling today holds itself to. We note that UKAD have referred information arising from their investigation to the General Medical Council and we offer them our wholehearted cooperation.

Freeman the fall guy then

I wonder how much Sky paid him to take the flack including pulling a perpetual sicky

some allegation to make

Not really. When you look at it all, it is pretty obvious.

So many lies from Sky and people still believe they are somehow winning clean in the cesspit of pro cycling. :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

It is has been said before. Anti-doping agencies at best are PR for sport to say, our athletes are being tested for doping, trust the ADA's, they are doing their job really well.

But we know from WADA down that it is a joke. Sport is corrupt, head to toe.

UKAD are one of the biggest jokes in sport.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

The worrying part is if the CMS never got involved this investigation never would have started. UKAD were only compelled due to their public funding and being hauled in front of the committee. You could see Stapstead was a very reluctant passenger in all of this, her normal MO is to do very little. You can also see the power that Brailsford wields over UK Sport, British Cycling and UKAD.

 

[Parker]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

But nobody has provided any evidence of any doping violations taking place. The prosecution has to present some sort of case to bring charges. Just saying 'I'm suspicious' and then denouncing the defence for not providing evidence certainly doesn't wash

 

[Robert5091]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-...sky-and-british-cycling-over-mystery-package/
Nothing to see here, move along now .... hope the whistle-blower got what it wanted.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

But nobody has provided any evidence of any doping violations taking place. The prosecution has to present some sort of case to bring charges. Just saying 'I'm suspicious' and then denouncing the defence for not providing evidence certainly doesn't wash

That’s because there is no power to compel a witness to speak. Neither Wiggins nor Freeman made a statement to UKAD. If it was an actual court of law Brailsford would have been charged with contempt, Freeman would have been sent for medical evaluation and Wiggins would have been cross examined.

 

[Parker]

Re: Sky

That’s because there is no power to compel a witness to speak. Neither Wiggins nor Freeman made a statement to UKAD. If it was an actual court of law Brailsford would have been charged with contempt, Freeman would have been sent for medical evaluation and Wiggins would have been cross examined.

Without an actual charge or evidence it goes nowhere near a court though

Go to you local police station and say 'my neighbour had a package delivered and it looked suspect to me' and see how far that gets.

 

[yaco]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

Nah - That undermines the key core of any legal system or anti-doping code that the accused is innocent until proven guilty - It's incumbent on the investigating body to find hard evidence to allow them to issue a charge - UKAD can't invent hard evidence when it doesn't exist - Your second paragraph is a work of fiction.

Will add that UKAD and a number of other Anti-Doping agencies have more than enough power - These agencies will always want more money or power.

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

That’s because there is no power to compel a witness to speak. Neither Wiggins nor Freeman made a statement to UKAD. If it was an actual court of law Brailsford would have been charged with contempt, Freeman would have been sent for medical evaluation and Wiggins would have been cross examined.

Without an actual charge or evidence it goes nowhere near a court though

Go to you local police station and say 'my neighbour had a package delivered and it looked suspect to me' and see how far that gets.

Again, no. Police have probable cause and can arrest under suspicion or can hold a witness in for questioning for 24 hours. Under a civil tort there is no charge and you can still issue a witness summons which a person is compelled by law to appear.

 

[yaco]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

But nobody has provided any evidence of any doping violations taking place. The prosecution has to present some sort of case to bring charges. Just saying 'I'm suspicious' and then denouncing the defence for not providing evidence certainly doesn't wash

100% correct with this post - But the whinging will continue.

 

[yaco]

Re: Sky

That’s because there is no power to compel a witness to speak. Neither Wiggins nor Freeman made a statement to UKAD. If it was an actual court of law Brailsford would have been charged with contempt, Freeman would have been sent for medical evaluation and Wiggins would have been cross examined.

Without an actual charge or evidence it goes nowhere near a court though

Go to you local police station and say 'my neighbour had a package delivered and it looked suspect to me' and see how far that gets.

Again, no. Police have probable cause and can arrest under suspicion or can hold a witness in for questioning for 24 hours. Under a civil tort there is no charge and you can still issue a witness summons which a person is compelled by law to appear.

But we don't need NADO's to have this power - The irony is I read in the Clinic how corrupt NADO's and the like are in investigating anti-doping cases, yet some want to give them more power and money - Makes no sense to me.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

This whole sorry episode just underlines the massive shortcomings in the powers that UKAD has and the inferences they can draw from lack of evidence.

In the same way as failing a number of out of competition tests constitutes a rule violation, SKY being unable to prove it was Flumacil should also equal an automatic rule violation.

Whilst drawing the comparison to a Civil or Criminal Court is fruitless Sky & BC knew that by making evidence disappear they could simply make the whole thing disappear (according to the prevailing AD framework), provided they dragged it out long enough.

I simply don't think this would wash in a 'proper' courtroom scenario where adverse inference from lack of evidence or silent witnesses comes into play. Reminds me of when LA's team mates were pulled in front of a grand jury by the Feds, and reminded that if they didn't tell the truth they would end up in prison.....that focuses the mind somewhat.....

But nobody has provided any evidence of any doping violations taking place. The prosecution has to present some sort of case to bring charges. Just saying 'I'm suspicious' and then denouncing the defence for not providing evidence certainly doesn't wash

:lol:

Ross Tucker‏@Scienceofsport 3 hours ago

Russia should’ve just burned all their medical records too. "Nothing to see here, but there’s a plume of smoke coming from the shed over there”.

“Russia, welcome back to the Games"

Lack of medical records, so the investigation is terminated. A lack of medical records as pertains to banned substances should immediately be an anti-doping violation. Tomato, tomato.

Remember Sky calimed they would leave no stone unturned in their quest to find marignal gains and Sky were the masters of detail, but no medical records!!! Destruction(or lack of medical records) of evidence should be a doping ban.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

That’s because there is no power to compel a witness to speak. Neither Wiggins nor Freeman made a statement to UKAD. If it was an actual court of law Brailsford would have been charged with contempt, Freeman would have been sent for medical evaluation and Wiggins would have been cross examined.

Without an actual charge or evidence it goes nowhere near a court though

Go to you local police station and say 'my neighbour had a package delivered and it looked suspect to me' and see how far that gets.

Again, no. Police have probable cause and can arrest under suspicion or can hold a witness in for questioning for 24 hours. Under a civil tort there is no charge and you can still issue a witness summons which a person is compelled by law to appear.

But we don't need NADO's to have this power - The irony is I read in the Clinic how corrupt NADO's and the like are in investing anti-doping cases, yet some want to give them more power and money - Makes no sense to me.

Tell us all Yaco, how UKAD's investigation is going into Team Linda McCartney?