Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sittingbison]

Was Wiggins smoking pot?
Ah, you have no idea - check.

Was he tested in competition.
Nope.

but Mas, thats the whole point. He removed himself from said competition (TdDane) ipso facto not tested in competition quad erat demonstratum not positive for pot

And they damn well are not testing him OOC.

 

[the big ring]

I never mentioned WADA in the 3 strike rule.

It was clear from Sittingbissons post that recreational drugs are subject to 3 strikes - unless of course you are saying that all PEDs are subject to 3 strikes, which I would doubt.
That shows that they (AFC( have a different view on recreational drugs.

No, again. It's their view on their players. Not their view on rec drugs.

Think UCI & Lance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

but Mas, thats the whole point. He removed himself from said competition (TdDane) ipso facto not tested in competition quad erat demonstratum not positive for pot

And they damn well are not testing him OOC.

Which brings us back full circle.

If he had and he had tested positive for a non Performance Enhancing drug that actually makes a mockery of anti-doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, again. It's their view on their players. Not their view on rec drugs.

Think UCI & Lance.

Is the 3 strike rule there for PEDs?
Yes or no.

 

[BroDeal]

Although its been taken from Kimmage to the Sky thread, a slight correction is that wiggo was not on vacation, he was in the middle of competition, with TdDenmak, TdBrit and Worlds all coming up.

Actually he was on vacation. He had upcoming races scheduled but he ducked out of the ones closest to his spliff smoking.

 

[sittingbison]

Is the 3 strike rule there for PEDs?
Yes or no.

this is the great unknown Mas. It is meant to be for recreational, but the whole thing is shrouded with secrecy given the clubs are not informed, and there have been so few failed drugs tests in the most physical football code on the world, it begs the question. Just like tennis et al that do not have a drugs problem

 

[Dr. Maserati]

this is the great unknown Mas. It is meant to be for recreational, but the whole thing is shrouded with secrecy given the clubs are not informed, and there have been so few failed drugs tests in the most physical football code on the world, it begs the question. Just like tennis et al that do not have a drugs problem

Thats what I was looking for.
I dont care for other sports - so I am not interested in whether they adhere to their own rules, but what they are saying is two different rules for the two different classes, which is what one would expect.

 

[sittingbison]

the problem being, as exemplified by the player I alluded to that was a cocaine and amphetamine addict, who was able to literally run himself to a standstill, vomit on the sideline, then run again non-stop until the end of the game. Then vomit again while accepting the man of the match award. Then going on a bender with the local drug honchos.

Its all murky, but the problem for wiggo is cycling is a signatory to WADA, recreational drugs like it or not are on the banned list, being caught for ANY drug on the list in this climate would be a disaster for cycling and him personally.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the problem being, as exemplified by the player I alluded to that was a cocaine and amphetamine addict, who was able to literally run himself to a standstill, vomit on the sideline, then run again non-stop until the end of the game. Then vomit again while accepting the man of the match award. Then going on a bender with the local drug honchos.

Its all murky, but the problem for wiggo is cycling is a signatory to WADA, recreational drugs like it or not are on the banned list, being caught for ANY drug on the list in this climate would be a disaster for cycling and him personally.

I dont want to get weighted down in this - but i have highlighted the word in all this.

That is a difference between recreational drugs and PEDs in sport.
If Wiggo was smoking a splif (big if) then it has no impact on the sport per se - ie you are not going to have Contador ringing Bjarne asking for some weed or see clouds of smoke coming from the buses before races.

BTW - I would not call amphetamines in rugby a 'recreational' drugs.

 

[the big ring]

From the outside it looks like AFL treats rec drugs differently.

I think the truth is if they accepted WADA's code unchanged when they signed on in 2005, too many players would have been sidelined for 3 months at a time, basically destroying the game.

That's the only thing they changed, and the only reason they did not sign up sooner - rec drugs = 3 months then life-time ban.

They feel there should be counselling and looking at WHY the player is using rec drugs, first.

Bottom line: 3rd offence = sanctioned.

To claim they think of them differently but still hand out a ban seems inconsistent to me. If they really think they are different, there should be no ban.

 

[sittingbison]

any way, an interesting discussion about the conundrum of drugs in sport, and not necessarily PEDs, bought about by a long range paparrazzi telephoto of wiggo lighting up a spliff of some persuasion.

Goodness, the next thing you know they will be taking pictures of naked bosums

Now, where were we with Sky? Ahhh thats right, only Porte is left standing from the Fab Four...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Maybe we should just let the riders decide which drug is "recreational" and which drug is performance enhancing. Marijuana (the drug that the Mongols smoked before going into battle, to make themselves fiercer) or maybe Viagra http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/23viagra.html a recreational drug if anything is.
Rules are rules, don't like them, change them. Or play a different game.

 

[Galic Ho]

Your first reply to me (even though I did not address you) was "I am surprised Dr M needs this spelt out so plainly for him.." You can take off your halo.


One last time.
You have NO IDEA what he was smoking.

If he was smoking MJ then he could have been in trouble if tested IN competition.
If (if) he had more than likely he would have received a slap on the wrist as MJ is not a PED in cycling. WADA have it included as it could have a role in other sports.

Good Doctor. Please play fair. You lost this one and this post proves it.

A slap on the wrist for marijuana? Arrggghh, no. Tom Boonen was hounded for an 'out of competition' cocaine positive. Not once, but twice. If in the case Wiggins was smoking pot, and yes it is very plausible given his nature and alcoholic demons, then deciding not to race whilst it's still in his system is a smart move. PR wise it is career suicide. Tom Boonen can get away with it, Wiggins? Why even risk it?

That's all that needs to be said. Yes in terms of doping it's hardly performance enhancing, but 'dem da rules.' You use dope, you are a dope. It can be traced numerous ways. Urine is one. Hair is another. Send in the barber I say. Then you'll know for sure. Even then, cycling he can get away with it as long as it is 'out of competition.' In competition, get popped for marijuana and you really are a dope. No excuses there. Just a hatchet job to cover up something one can easily mask OR avoid by NOT RACING. So Big Ring's idea, regardless of it's validity is fundamentally spot on. It fits. Personally I think he was just too lazy to race. Couldn't be ******ed. Can't say I blame him. The less he races, the less he wins. Maybe he didn't want to skew his UCI points index with a dud performance?

What was he smoking? A spliff? Cigar? Regular cigarette? Don't care. Shouldn't have been smoking period. Not in a sport like cycling. That was the least of his troubles IMO. The booze is the real problem for him. Not smoking.

 

[python]

i could care less about wiggins (though as i said once, i personally suspect him but for other reasons) but did ANYONE noticed that the article that published the photo of wiggins smoking said, it was a tobacco thing?

was it ? or, as some reasonably speculated, it was a 'recreational drug'.

either way, we don't know and that's where this argument ends for me.

as to the general notion if the recreational drugs are performance enhancing, well, again opinions differ. there seem to be enough folks among the wada advisers - and this is an indisputable fact regardless of whether it's right or wrong - that DO think they should be banned in competition. why ? since i never smoked anything, much less a joint, i'd have to rely on what some friends told me -
the recreational drugs are effective pain killers.

regardless, i've been a proponent of all dangerous drugs, the street variety included, should be banned both in comp and out of comp.

i know many would disagree.

 

[Galic Ho]

WADA rules are written to cover all (well most) sports.
They even have alcohol listed as prohibited for certain sports.

The very fact that you mention a 3 strike system shows that recreational drugs are viewed differently. Which as the role of anti-doping is about PEDs is quite correct and consistent with what they do.

I found an example of a cyclist caught by USADA for THC In-Competition in 2010 - he got a 3 month suspension.

No. It shows you know nothing about PED in Australian sports. It also shows your understanding of what sport frowns upon what drug is skewed. Cycling hates PED in the press. Smoke screen. The UCI loves them. Australian sports hate recreational drugs in the press. Secretly they love them and cover up their use.

The AFL player was West Coast Eagles captain Ben Cousins. Their mid field had 3 of the top 4 players in the league. He was one of them. He was allowed to run around, and around and around associating with mob boss wannabees, illegal gambling dens, drug dealers, the whole lot. Oh and he had a massive recreational drug program. Failure to keep him in line, destroyed the best team in AFL in the mid 2000s. The team lost Cousins, who was stopping before RBT's (breath testing) and doing runners on the cops leaving his missus in the car to face them alone and then finally getting outed nationally. The stand in captain, Chris Judd also left. Can't blame him, given the way the others on the team carried on. Judd is arguably the best player of the last decade. Left Perth for Melbourne. All because the team allowed drug taking. Lots of names on that team had drug issues. Kerr's name was mentioned (he was the 3rd mid field player) in bad light as well.

So how did these guys celebrate. By traveling to Vegas at the end of the season and hitting up everything they could get their hands on. The Weagles had two players rushed into emergency service rooms. Ben Cousins died on the table and was revived by US doctors. I was saying to my dad a few weeks back one day someone would die because the AFL covers it all up. A few days later, a kid from Port Adelaide died in Vegas. Fell from a building. I don't even need to know why. It was inevitable.

But for the good Doctor to assume the role of anti-doping being PED predominantly is wrong. Ever heard of Wendell Sailor? Rugby league player turned Union player, dual national rep. Guess not then. Or maybe Shane Warne? In Australia, you cop a 2 year and 1 year ban respectively for cocaine use and a diuretic, like these two both did respectively. Both returned after their bans. Tom Boonen? Yeah, gets a slap on the wrist. In Australian sport, they ban you for recreational drugs, because that is pretty much all they test for. That's where the budget goes. Recreational drug testing is cheaper. That is why the AFL has their 3 strikes policy because it is so widespread it isn't funny. Every Vegas trip, someone ends up in a hospital, either needing resuscitating, or a serious help.

But to top it all off, one of the most famous Rugby League players of the past 15 years, Andrew Johns, was arrested for ecstasy possession on the Tube. Yes, the British Fuzz caught him. Channel 9 who show most traditional Aussie sports did a nice interview and PR job for him. Not a surprise there given he was groomed to be a commentator. He was nice enough to admit he'd had a drug problem for his entire career. Said he'd be tested maybe once a year, so it was easy to take a hit.

So the approach of WADA is spot on. You do both. You target them all. Different sports and countries have different drug problems. Australian sports have a bigger underlying recreational drug problem. Cycling does not have that, hence focus on PEDs, which are the real problem there. Play sport, heck a major sport, in Australia and get done for PEDs????? Yeah, let me know when that happens. Recreational drugs on the other hand, yeah they frown on that and ban you straight away. Regardless of how big you are.

 

[Galic Ho]

a three month suspension for wiggo during the Armstrong debacle would have been cataclysmic for cycling - and the end of his career.

Aussie Rules - I suspect they might not be signatory to WADA. Anyway, they have a privacy policy, not even the club are told about recreational drug use the first three times. The player is counselled. The League want marijuana and certain others removed from the list.

Funnily enough, there has been - wait for it - ONE Aussie Rules player done for steroids lol.

None of the big football codes in Australia have been signatories to the best of my knowledge. Doesn't mean WADA's approach to both recreational drugs or PED's is wrong.

It's the stigma attached to each type of drug in the general populace that matters. Recreational drugs come with many ills and grievances. They're more frowned upon in the local populace than someone using steroids. Most people laugh at the steroid use and worse PEDs because they know next to nothing about them. They're a joke. But speed, cocaine and ecstasy...they see the affects of them all the time. It's in the neighborhoods. Among the community as a whole. it's visible. Someone juicing for sports performance to them, is not the same thing. Which is what the Doctor forgot.

And yes, you are right. The AFL does cover it up and for good reason. They dug out the skeletons in the closets of League and AFL clubs...well it'd be ugly. Very ugly. So the revolving 3 door policy works. Notices the problem and provides an avenue to deal with it internally. Just like the NFL does with it's roid problem in the USA. You only get caught once. Get caught 3 times you really are an idiot. As for PED's...they don't test for them. Not like one would assume. This is where cycling fails. Management in these sports cover their athletes better. No less dirty than the UCI, but they cover the players better. None of this nonsense about making people scape goats.

 

[Galic Ho]

Is the 3 strike rule there for PEDs?
Yes or no.

It's for everything.

Does that mean they test for PEDs? Yes of course they do!!!!

I agree with what you said, just that you avoided the public's part in anti-doping. If it were out of competition, any cyclist may be tested. Probably not likely, but still probable. One races, yes it is on the cards and yes, a recreational drug gives you a ban in competition. But not if it's out of competition.

The point is though, some sports, you get a ban for recreational use, regardless but they don't care about PEDs. Then there is cycling and the relationship is reversed. Foolishly, but still reversed. Ultimately cycling is still harsher, but that is because the drugs on offer give such a performance boost. Effect versus social stigma.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I'll ignore your missing the threads in the Clinic about the Olympic RR and team GB. You were moping in the pro thread after your last outing in the Clinic left you battered and bruised.

Really must suck being a Brith now hey? Can't add, can't think straight. All these nasty clinic people picking on team Sky! Good times. Good times.

Firstly, doing something like that, day in, day out, by HTC alone. Never ever happened. They stopped in between. And it was never, ever done by just FOUR men over 200km.

No, the attitude and confidence to race that way is present because of their doping program. Put the distance down to 20-25% of that and you don't have to pull Cavendish up hills, plus add in some of the absent track guys who are favoured and not the obsolete guys at Sky, then the TTT is theirs for the taking. They'd win it comfortably. Just like Astana did with their overpowered team in 2009 at the Tour.

But thanks for the laughs Mellow once again. No wonder you think Sky are clean with that logic. Heck, you probably thought HTC were as white as snow in the purity stakes

LOL: All that schoolboy rant over the simple pointing out that there is a significant difference between race speeds and TTT speeds.?

So now the fact that folks follow pro racing, rather than the Clinic sages is seen as a stigma?
Whatever, Hopeless.

 

[the big ring]

No. It shows you know nothing about PED in Australian sports. It also shows your understanding of what sport frowns upon what drug is skewed. Cycling hates PED in the press. Smoke screen. The UCI loves them. Australian sports hate recreational drugs in the press. Secretly they love them and cover up their use.

Gary Ablett snr + cocaine + young girl dead in a hotel.

 

[the big ring]

None of the big football codes in Australia have been signatories to the best of my knowledge. Doesn't mean WADA's approach to both recreational drugs or PED's is wrong.

AFL signed up in 2005, with the changes for rec drugs.
NRL also, but the statements of the time sounded dodgy as.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/13525/default.aspx

 

[richtea]

I don't really understand the fuss. If we saw photos of him suffering at 7am on the terrace at Space after going too heavy on the K it wouldn't be an issue. After all, we've all been there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe we should just let the riders decide which drug is "recreational" and which drug is performance enhancing. Marijuana (the drug that the Mongols smoked before going into battle, to make themselves fiercer) or maybe Viagra http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/23viagra.html a recreational drug if anything is.
Rules are rules, don't like them, change them. Or play a different game.

Seriously Hugh?
This is why I am getting fed up with this place.
You have completely made up something and then talk about rules are rules.

The rules are that THC outside of competition does not warrant a sanction - in competition it would result in a small sanction. Quite rightly too.

<snipped for brevity>

regardless, i've been a proponent of all dangerous drugs, the street variety included, should be banned both in comp and out of comp.

i know many would disagree.

Indeed, i dont agree - but I respect your view.

My view is where would WADA (or any ADA) draw the line?
Their role is to get rid of Performance Enhancing drugs - not just the ones that are "unhealthy" - if it was about health then could they bust you for drinking, speeding etc.
I could make a wonderful arguement that certain PEDs enhance health (I wouldn't agree but..)

Recreational drugs should be addressed at local level - by the sport Fed or the clubs/teams.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's for everything.

Does that mean they test for PEDs? Yes of course they do!!!!

I agree with what you said, just that you avoided the public's part in anti-doping. If it were out of competition, any cyclist may be tested. Probably not likely, but still probable. One races, yes it is on the cards and yes, a recreational drug gives you a ban in competition. But not if it's out of competition.

The point is though, some sports, you get a ban for recreational use, regardless but they don't care about PEDs. Then there is cycling and the relationship is reversed. Foolishly, but still reversed. Ultimately cycling is still harsher, but that is because the drugs on offer give such a performance boost. Effect versus social stigma.

I was trying to make sense of all your posts and I think this answers it.

You're right - I avoided "the public's" part in anti-doping, because its irrelevant. This is not a democracy, there is no shared view (as this forum shows).
That the masses confuse recreational drugs and PEDs is PR, not anti-doping.

You actually proved the point about Australians being outraged or whatever about a guy with a drug problem while completely missing the PED abuse in sport.

 

[Benotti69]

I wonder who Ashenden could be talking about with this,

I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers even within ‘new age’ cycling teams.

Could he be referring to the TdF GT team at Sky under Leinders or is he pointing the finger at Garmin or both?

 

[richtea]

He's pointing the finger at everyone there isn't he?