The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
TourOfSardinia said:morale surely?Serpentin said:Seems like the moral in the team is gone.
TourOfSardinia said:morale surely?Serpentin said:Seems like the moral in the team is gone.
samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
Alpe73 said:Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
So ... Russian hackers ... without motive ... find that Wiigins and Sky may have been 'unethical.'
Is that the big story?
samhocking said:Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
That's not the impression I've got. Sutton's been consistent in his comments about TUEs. He's added the unethical part, but that's what the whole debat is about, is is it ethical. Obviously it's not in a bread and water racing desire, but in reality it's within the rules. i.e. use them to get a rider to 100%. AS for getting away with it. From who? The fans?
Wiggo's Package said:Alpe73 said:Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
So ... Russian hackers ... without motive ... find that Wiigins and Sky may have been 'unethical.'
Is that the big story?
Russian hackers without motive? Other than the Russians being banned from the Olympics for state sponsored doping. An easy enough thing to forget if you try hard enough
And UKAD were sent in to turn Russian anti-doping round. Yes "No bad news before Rio" UKAD! That would hack off even that nice Mr Putin :razz:
morals mean nothing in cyclingmacbindle said:If you read Ripper's linked article it states that Sutton submitted written evidence where he stated that Wiggins actions were unethical
Alpe73 said:Wiggo's Package said:Alpe73 said:Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Although Suttons comments are not published with the report for a wider context to what was selected in the report (just said to exist under 135 - Correspondence between Shane Sutton) the words Sutton gave to the committee were "what Brad was doing was unethical but not against the rules".
Suttons comments generally are about using a TUE to get a rider at 95% to 100% so I assume he means it's unethical to use a TUE to get a rider to 100% performance level even though it's within the rules. Kind of along the lines of Tim Wellens who said he would rather quit the race that get a TUE for his heat allergies. Wellens says that is not ethical in the same way as Suton, but even though within the rules does not use it to stay in the race.
Sutton's utterances contain internal contradictions from minute to minute. He's not the sharpest tool but he's ruthless. So don't be surprised if his evidence doesn't stack up under close scrutiny
But gotta love the way that every time he speaks out in Sky/BC's defence he makes things worse for them. Not forgetting the leaks. And the blackmail
The "unethical" comment was design not accident. Walsh explained it was just Sutton, Brailsfraud, Wiggo and Freeman in on the dodgy TUE strategy. If not for Fancy Bears they'd have got away with it too. Sutton wanted to make sure DCMS put the boot in
So ... Russian hackers ... without motive ... find that Wiigins and Sky may have been 'unethical.'
Is that the big story?
Russian hackers without motive? Other than the Russians being banned from the Olympics for state sponsored doping. An easy enough thing to forget if you try hard enough
And UKAD were sent in to turn Russian anti-doping round. Yes "No bad news before Rio" UKAD! That would hack off even that nice Mr Putin :razz:
Missing the sarcasm and the point, this morning, WP.
yes, Chris Froome being onemacbindle said:I disagree.
There are plenty of examples of riders who refuse TUEs even when unwell...let alone abuse them when not really Ill in order to gain an unfair advantage.
rick james said:yes, Chris Froome being onemacbindle said:I disagree.
There are plenty of examples of riders who refuse TUEs even when unwell...let alone abuse them when not really Ill in order to gain an unfair advantage.
macbindle said:rick james said:yes, Chris Froome being onemacbindle said:I disagree.
There are plenty of examples of riders who refuse TUEs even when unwell...let alone abuse them when not really Ill in order to gain an unfair advantage.
The documents released by 'Fancy Bear' confirm that Froome obtained TUEs to use the corticosteroid prednisolone in May 2013 and April 2014.
Have you forgotten how he was so very very ill at the TdR that he took a huge dose of steroids, deemed by doctors to be the sort of dose suited to a hospitalised patient, and then not only won the race but beat the reigning World TT Champion in the TT.
So no. Froome is not one of them. Far from it.
.
Refused one at the 2015 tour de France, a hero to somemacbindle said:rick james said:yes, Chris Froome being onemacbindle said:I disagree.
There are plenty of examples of riders who refuse TUEs even when unwell...let alone abuse them when not really Ill in order to gain an unfair advantage.
The documents released by 'Fancy Bear' confirm that Froome obtained TUEs to use the corticosteroid prednisolone in May 2013 and April 2014.
Have you forgotten how he was so very very ill at the TdR that he took a huge dose of steroids, deemed by doctors to be the sort of dose suited to a hospitalised patient, and then not only won the race but beat the reigning World TT Champion in the TT.
So no. Froome is not one of them. Far from it.
.
No he didn't. Contador wasn't in the race. He won the 2014 by getting in a two man break with Spilak (who won the stage) and then beating him with time trialling. Rui Costa was third.Wiggo's Package said:Ha! The Dawg won the TdR by beating Contador who was on good form.
2 TUE he’s had, wanting the world to crumble over 2...amazingmacbindle said:Of course the only person telling us that is Froome himself. I'm not aware of any corroborating evidence to back up his claim. Are you?
Seems strange for Froome to suffer from an attack of morality in 2015 when he had no qualms about using TUEs to win the Dauphiné and Romandie.
rick james said:2 TUE he’s had, wanting the world to crumble over 2...amazingmacbindle said:Of course the only person telling us that is Froome himself. I'm not aware of any corroborating evidence to back up his claim. Are you?
Seems strange for Froome to suffer from an attack of morality in 2015 when he had no qualms about using TUEs to win the Dauphiné and Romandie.
macbindle said:rick james said:2 TUE he’s had, wanting the world to crumble over 2...amazingmacbindle said:Of course the only person telling us that is Froome himself. I'm not aware of any corroborating evidence to back up his claim. Are you?
Seems strange for Froome to suffer from an attack of morality in 2015 when he had no qualms about using TUEs to win the Dauphiné and Romandie.
A few posts back you were telling us that Froome was one of the people who refuses TUEs on moral grounds.
The evidence shows he doesn't. He won two races on them. As for his claim that he refused a TUE in 2015, well, why would he do that if he hadn't before? Sounds like typical Froome lying to me.
Have they to swear on the bible as wellAlpe73 said:Maybe it’s time that UCI employ an “Ethics Chaplain” ... portable confessional ‘n all. It’s a start.