Why would you need a TUE for directly after a tour? Would be hard to apply for, Which is why Sky would do all the normal illegal doping as well as the allowed TUE's. Simple really.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
brownbobby said:Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:A big stumbling block is the Sky Staff whisteblower statement to the Committee. His statement says it wasn't Triamcinolone in the package, it was indeed Fluamicil to be used as an anti-oxident recovery and so he believes needles were in the jiffy bag and therefore the no-needles recovery rule was broken. However, the whistleblower to Daily Mail & UKAD believed it to be Triamcinolone and Matt Lawton says that whisteblower came forward because of the Fancy Bears leak, not because the no-needles policy was broken. When the two main whistleblowers in all this are not on the same page, it's not encouraging anyone will get the bottom of this perhaps?
The senior Team Sky insider who gave the jiffy bag story to Matt Lawton hit the nail on the head it was triamcinolone in the package taken on a race day without a TUE and therefore a doping violation
The recent statement to the DCMS committee is a deflection tactic just Brailsford thinking he's clever the usual BS
Glad you've cleared that one up and given us the facts. Presume you've passed your concrete evidence onto the relevant authorities?
Just one question. Why would on earth would Sky, who we've already established were well versed in 'gaming' the TUE system, take such a huge risk by administering this without a TUE?
Craigee said:Why would you need a TUE for directly after a tour? Would be hard to apply for, Which is why Sky would do all the normal illegal doping as well as the allowed TUE's. Simple really.
Could we get a source for the first whistleblower being a "senior Team Sky insider" or are you just tarting up the Shane Sutton rumour?Wiggo's Package said:The senior Team Sky insider who gave the jiffy bag story to Matt Lawton
It was allegedly administered that day, in the back of the bus as it prepared to leave the race. Do read the original story.brownbobby said:You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
Important to note that Rule 5 covers both sides of the fence.MarkvW said:There seem to be five groupings.
(1) The idealists who approach the issue honestly with the hope that cycling can be made better by grappling with the idea of doping.
(2) The realists who really don't give a damn about doping and enjoy the sport anyway.
(3) The realists who enjoy the whole show, from scenery panorama, to racing, to antidoping drama.
(4) The denialists, who don't want to see how sausage is made.
(5) The self-interested, who know where their bread is buttered and will attack any challenge to that self-interest. Their stance on anti-doping depends entirely upon how it might affect their interests.
fmk_RoI said:Important to note that Rule 5 covers both sides of the fence.MarkvW said:There seem to be five groupings.
(1) The idealists who approach the issue honestly with the hope that cycling can be made better by grappling with the idea of doping.
(2) The realists who really don't give a damn about doping and enjoy the sport anyway.
(3) The realists who enjoy the whole show, from scenery panorama, to racing, to antidoping drama.
(4) The denialists, who don't want to see how sausage is made.
(5) The self-interested, who know where their bread is buttered and will attack any challenge to that self-interest. Their stance on anti-doping depends entirely upon how it might affect their interests.
fmk_RoI said:Could we get a source for the first whistleblower being a "senior Team Sky insider" or are you just tarting up the Shane Sutton rumour?Wiggo's Package said:The senior Team Sky insider who gave the jiffy bag story to Matt Lawton
brownbobby said:Craigee said:Why would you need a TUE for directly after a tour? Would be hard to apply for, Which is why Sky would do all the normal illegal doping as well as the allowed TUE's. Simple really.
You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
samhocking said:A big stumbling block is the Sky Staff whisteblower statement to the Committee. His statement says it wasn't Triamcinolone in the package, it was indeed Fluamicil to be used as an anti-oxident recovery and so he believes needles were in the jiffy bag and therefore the no-needles recovery rule was broken. However, the whistleblower to Daily Mail & UKAD believed it to be Triamcinolone and Matt Lawton says that whisteblower came forward because of the Fancy Bears leak, not because the no-needles policy was broken. When the two main whistleblowers in all this are not on the same page, it's not encouraging anyone will get the bottom of this perhaps?
Wiggo's Package said:brownbobby said:Craigee said:Why would you need a TUE for directly after a tour? Would be hard to apply for, Which is why Sky would do all the normal illegal doping as well as the allowed TUE's. Simple really.
You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
Marginal gains innit
Of course Sky/Wiggo could have waited 12hrs to max out on Kenacort. But they wanted to turbo charge the recovery process asap
And calculated that with Wiggo having already been dope tested that day as the winner of the race the vampires wouldn't come calling again that day
Sutton too or a doc?The source claims that Team Sky hired Dr. Fabio Bartalucci in 2010 because of his expertise in IV recovery, and that Dr. Richard Freeman continued the practise, but out of competition so not technically a violation of the UCI ‘no needles’ policy. However, some medical staff quit over the issue believing it was ethically wrong.
The report said the whistle-blower also told UKAD the team used Therapeutic Use Exemption certificates for both health and performance reasons.
around 900 words long and written by an anonymous source who identifies him or herself as “a Sky insider”.
brownbobby said:Craigee said:Why would you need a TUE for directly after a tour? Would be hard to apply for, Which is why Sky would do all the normal illegal doping as well as the allowed TUE's. Simple really.
You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
MartinGT said:I wonder what the news was that Wiggins was going to 'shock' us with.
You have confused UKAD and DCMS.Robert5091 said:So if Sutton is behind the "Jiffy Bag" story, who's the "Sky insider" who contacted UKAD? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/13/ukad-team-sky-breached-no-needles-allegation or
https://cyclingtips.com/news/whistle-blower-claims-team-sky-breached-no-needles-policy/
Sutton too or a doc?The source claims that Team Sky hired Dr. Fabio Bartalucci in 2010 because of his expertise in IV recovery, and that Dr. Richard Freeman continued the practise, but out of competition so not technically a violation of the UCI ‘no needles’ policy. However, some medical staff quit over the issue believing it was ethically wrong.
The report said the whistle-blower also told UKAD the team used Therapeutic Use Exemption certificates for both health and performance reasons.
70kmph said:Whistleblower e-mail
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...combatting-doping-in-sport/written/69004.html
Sky using TUE's to support performance
This is quite clearly nonsense. 5 years is the maximum penalty for sports doping. For that it would have to be running a massive Fuentes style scheme.70kmph said:because a Doctor in possession of needles at a race faces a 5 year prison sentence
Parker said:This is quite clearly nonsense. 5 years is the maximum penalty for sports doping. For that it would have to be running a massive Fuentes style scheme.70kmph said:because a Doctor in possession of needles at a race faces a 5 year prison sentence
Injecting vitamin B isn't even a doping offence - it would be an infringement of the UCI's no needles policy, not a breach of the WADA code.
fmk_RoI said:You have confused UKAD and DCMS.Robert5091 said:So if Sutton is behind the "Jiffy Bag" story, who's the "Sky insider" who contacted UKAD? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/13/ukad-team-sky-breached-no-needles-allegation or
https://cyclingtips.com/news/whistle-blower-claims-team-sky-breached-no-needles-policy/
Sutton too or a doc?The source claims that Team Sky hired Dr. Fabio Bartalucci in 2010 because of his expertise in IV recovery, and that Dr. Richard Freeman continued the practise, but out of competition so not technically a violation of the UCI ‘no needles’ policy. However, some medical staff quit over the issue believing it was ethically wrong.
The report said the whistle-blower also told UKAD the team used Therapeutic Use Exemption certificates for both health and performance reasons.
70kmph said:Whistleblower e-mail
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...combatting-doping-in-sport/written/69004.html
Sky using TUE's to support performance
Simon Cope unfortunately is just an unwitting porn in this
Steve Peters was fully aware of every thing that was going on regarding the medical team at that time and interestingly for the London Olympics he was on the medical committee that approved TUE's .
fmk_RoI said:It was allegedly administered that day, in the back of the bus as it prepared to leave the race. Do read the original story.brownbobby said:You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
brownbobby said:fmk_RoI said:It was allegedly administered that day, in the back of the bus as it prepared to leave the race. Do read the original story.brownbobby said:You wouldn't need a TUE anyway directly after a tour. Cortisone is not banned OOC. I suppose that the package being delivered on the last day of the Dauphine doesn't necessarily mean it was administered on that day, could well have waited 12 hours or so and taken it perfectly legally. So why the big cover up? Because the widespread use of Cortisone is not something Sky wanted to be associated with considering the high moral ground they had taken...
Yes, allegedly. Thankyou for confirming that we don't know when it was administered. Do consider all aspects of the story before attempting to belittle and patronise people for their opinions and theories on said story.