Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[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.

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 the police would expect you to provide something to suggest that there was wrong doing beyond your own suspicions to get them to do so much as put down their donut.
Someone having a package delivered isn't probable cause. It's everyday behaviour.

 

[gillan1969]

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.

in the real world the evidence provided to the select committee has usurped the UKAD process...

we've seen behind the curtain and the good wizard twirling the wheels......in your world he may still be a wizard but we now know otherwise.......

 

[gillan1969]

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 the police would expect you to provide something to suggest that there was wrong doing beyond your own suspicions to get them to do so much as put down their donut.
Someone having a package delivered isn't probable cause. It's everyday behaviour.

not sure if you noticed the two GT donkey's snatching the TdF........not really everyday behaviour.....

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Sky

Matt Lawton's take:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5084793/UKAD-close-investigation-Team-Sky-jiffy-bag-storm.html

"UKAD have essentially stepped aside so that the GMC can advance their own investigation...It is hoped that the GMC will be able to make more progress because of their ability to force open issues of patient confidentiality...Sportsmail understands that the evidence passed to them by UKAD is not related to the jiffy bag but concerns Freeman more directly...If GMC uncover evidence that is pertinent to UKAD the anti-doping agency would expect it to be passed to them."

 

[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 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?

Yeah - The one where the 'Statue of Limitations' passed long ago - But some still ask about the investigation.

 

[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.

in the real world the evidence provided to the select committee has usurped the UKAD process...

we've seen behind the curtain and the good wizard twirling the wheels......in your world he may still be a wizard but we now know otherwise.......

The irony of The Clinic - Expecting politician's to get to the bottom of this matter - The same politician's who have silently allowed these abuses to happen - You are desperate when you 'hang your hat' on dubious characters.

 

[gillan1969]

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.

in the real world the evidence provided to the select committee has usurped the UKAD process...

we've seen behind the curtain and the good wizard twirling the wheels......in your world he may still be a wizard but we now know otherwise.......

The irony of The Clinic - Expecting politician's to get to the bottom of this matter - The same politician's who have silently allowed these abuses to happen - You are desperate when you 'hang your hat' on dubious characters.

The expectation is not there and so no hats are being hung......however, the fact of the matter is they did get to the bottom of it...

clinging to the belief that everything got lost, including the good doc, is what smacks of desperation...

 

[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

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

in the real world the evidence provided to the select committee has usurped the UKAD process...

we've seen behind the curtain and the good wizard twirling the wheels......in your world he may still be a wizard but we now know otherwise.......

The irony of The Clinic - Expecting politician's to get to the bottom of this matter - The same politician's who have silently allowed these abuses to happen - You are desperate when you 'hang your hat' on dubious characters.

The CMS report is still to come.

 

[Parker]

Re: Sky

The CMS report is still to come.

And it will say much the same but it come attached to a back bench MP who has never been near a bike race making big proclamations about the reputation of Sky.
If we're lucky we'll get the hypocrisy of him banging on about the importance of transparency while his party refuses to release Brexit Impact reports.

 

[bob.a.feet]

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

Yeah - The one where the 'Statue of Limitations' passed long ago - But some still ask about the investigation.

Yeah, so many in UK sport wanted to see UKAD's investigation catch the cheats. :lol:

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

The CMS report is still to come.

And it will say much the same but it come attached to a back bench MP who has never been near a bike race making big proclamations about the reputation of Sky.
If we're lucky we'll get the hypocrisy of him banging on about the importance of transparency while his party refuses to release Brexit Impact reports.

Thanks Lance, anyone else we need to silence or shut down?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

The irony of The Clinic - Expecting politician's to get to the bottom of this matter - The same politician's who have silently allowed these abuses to happen - You are desperate when you 'hang your hat' on dubious characters.

Imagine expecting a depiscable bunch of politicians, a known group of corrupt power hungry naer do wells, instead of those padi to do it, ie UKAD.

Sport is a cesspit and Sky some of the dirtiest players.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Sky

The CMS report is still to come.

And it will say much the same but it come attached to a back bench MP who has never been near a bike race making big proclamations about the reputation of Sky.
If we're lucky we'll get the hypocrisy of him banging on about the importance of transparency while his party refuses to release Brexit Impact reports.

Still thinking Sky are some kind of clean team, beating teams deep in the culture doping to perform in the sport.

UKAD are a proven joke, Linda McCartney and Dr Bonar are 2 big examples, never mind TeamSky, the team caught out lying about so much!

 

[thehog]

Re: Sky

Well said;

Damian Collins MP, the chair of the Culture Media and Sport select committee, has described the outcome of UK Anti-Doping’s year-long investigation into Team Sky and British Cycling as unacceptable and unsatisfactory, insisting it was “not an exoneration of anyone” and adding that a “cloud now hangs over one of our greatest Olympians”.

Collins said that he felt the case overall demonstrated UKAD's lack of powers and said he favoured making doping a criminal offence.

UKAD announced on Wednesday that no anti-doping charges were to be brought as a result of its investigation into the contents of a jiffy bag delivered to Sir Bradley Wiggins at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphine.

However, it stressed that its investigation had been hampered by a “lack of accurate medical records”, which it described as a “serious concern”. And it said it would be handing over some of the evidence it gathered to the General Medical Council, which could result in that body taking on the investigation.

Collins said he hoped the GMC would do exactly that, adding that UKAD’s inability to establish what was in the package was a problem.

“I think it clearly shows that UKAD does not have the powers it needs and I've been very clear on this,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “UKAD currently relies on people's willingness to cooperate. It has no legal authority to compel anyone to speak.”

Asked whether he favoured the criminalisation of doping, Collins replied: “I think so. I was very struck by the evidence [former rider] Nicole Cooke gave to the select committee when she said that in those countries where doping is illegal, they have much more effective investigations.”

Collins said the entire case had been unsatisfactory. His committee is currently preparing a report into doping in sport, which is due to be published “in the next few weeks”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017/11/15/ukad-close-case-team-skys-mystery-bradley-wiggins-parcel-no/amp/

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

According to the man himself he was interviewed by UKAD this time last year. . . https://twitter.com/SirWiggo

 

[fmk_RoI]

Wiggins wants names:

UKAD’s findings this morning have left me with a series of my own questions;

- Where did the information come from to launch the investigation?
- Who was the source?
- What exactly did that person say and to whom?
- Why did UKAD deem it appropriate to treat it as a credible allegation?
- Surely it is now in the public interest to reveal this source?
- Why has it taken so long for these conclusions to be drawn?
- How much tax payers money has been spent so far on this investigation?

 

[70kmph]

Lack of accurate medical records, funny

Who is go to keep doping records, sure I gave this rider EPO and some testosterone then I kept this recorded in case an investigation needs to see it...

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Wiggins wants names:

UKAD’s findings this morning have left me with a series of my own questions;

- Where did the information come from to launch the investigation?
- Who was the source?
- What exactly did that person say and to whom?
- Why did UKAD deem it appropriate to treat it as a credible allegation?
- Surely it is now in the public interest to reveal this source?
- Why has it taken so long for these conclusions to be drawn?
- How much tax payers money has been spent so far on this investigation?

Wouldn't it be gas if the conspiracy theorists were right and it really was Shane Sutton what blew the whistle and UKAD actually named him?

(Though I thought UKAD were spurred into action by the newspaper report, so they shouldn't know who the whistleblower was?)

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

Wiggins wants names:

UKAD’s findings this morning have left me with a series of my own questions;

- Where did the information come from to launch the investigation?
- Who was the source?
- What exactly did that person say and to whom?
- Why did UKAD deem it appropriate to treat it as a credible allegation?
- Surely it is now in the public interest to reveal this source?
- Why has it taken so long for these conclusions to be drawn?
- How much tax payers money has been spent so far on this investigation?

If Wiggo does go after UKAD, there's a good chance a judge will force them to tell him. As for why he can't go after Sky there is likely a bevy of clauses in his old contract that prevents such action.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Lack of accurate medical records, funny

Who is go to keep doping records, sure I gave this rider EPO and some testosterone then I kept this recorded in case an investigation needs to see it...

Uh, how bout we start with PDM?

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Wouldn't it be gas if the conspiracy theorists were right and it really was Shane Sutton what blew the whistle and UKAD actually named him?

(Though I thought UKAD were spurred into action by the newspaper report, so they shouldn't know who the whistleblower was?)

According to Paul Kimmage in an interview, he said he got an e-mail about it some time before the Mail wrote about it and the source was a) anonymous and b) didn't say what was in the package (as Kimmage could only guess at that)

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Wiggins wants names:

UKAD’s findings this morning have left me with a series of my own questions;

- Where did the information come from to launch the investigation?
- Who was the source?
- What exactly did that person say and to whom?
- Why did UKAD deem it appropriate to treat it as a credible allegation?
- Surely it is now in the public interest to reveal this source?
- Why has it taken so long for these conclusions to be drawn?
- How much tax payers money has been spent so far on this investigation?

If Wiggo does go after UKAD, there's a good chance a judge will force them to tell him. As for why he can't go after Sky there is likely a bevy of clauses in his old contract that prevents such action.

Or maybe he doesn't want to 'go after' the people who, by fair means or foul, made him into a TDF winner?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

If Wiggo does go after UKAD, there's a good chance a judge will force them to tell him. As for why he can't go after Sky there is likely a bevy of clauses in his old contract that prevents such action.

There's no chance...

 

[70kmph]

Re: Re:

Lack of accurate medical records, funny

Who is go to keep doping records, sure I gave this rider EPO and some testosterone then I kept this recorded in case an investigation needs to see it...

Uh, how bout we start with PDM?

Is that what Sky did, kept records of all the medicines, where are Freeman notes
They don't even know when their 52 vials of Kenakort disappeared into thin air