Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 52 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Freddythefrog said:
samhocking said:
................. .............. Nobody necessarily knows what this play is about yet because only the support actors have said anything so far................
Sam it is what so endearing. It is not "nobody" it is you, Sam Hocking. There is a significant number of the rest of us who realise that the script does not change so we know the story. Giant Haystacks cons little old ladies on a Saturday afternoon, and takes their money for entertaining them. He gets to have lots of money he could not earn via any honest work and his kids can go to footy in a limo.

Current celebrities don't do that anymore as it is too gauche now. They are more devious. They already have lots of money that they have gained by deception but the greed has no end. They set up charaties allegedly to do good works and this gives them yet another income stream to fleece the unwary. Then they redirect the money to their kids rugby club and their oh so needy team-mates http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3706092/Why-did-Wiggins-charity-money-cycling-superstars-Olympic-hero-Bradley-Wiggins-vowed-charity-focus-poor-children-investigation-reveals-gave-money-team-mates-son-s-rugby-team.html

Have a read of it all. Is there anything to like in that story Sam ? Is there anything endearing about Wiggins there ? Go on Sam, what is my next step ?

Oh look - well who'd have thunkked it. Here is view from BC press man Blazing Saddles AKA Felix Lowe as he posts his biased nonsense over at Bike Radar as the Shane Sutton debacle exploded in April 2016.

Mmmm, folks seem to have missed the most contemporary and relevant view.
Joanna Rowsell said yesterday, it ain't so:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/36132668


Hey Joanna, you know what it means to keep in with the boys like Shane and Brad don't you. I wonder why Brad made sure some of his "charity money" found its way to you in 2013 ? Oh and look - Dani king is there supporting Sutton from all them claims as well. Didn't I read her name in that article as well ?

Totally lost on Felix is that he is very much part of the problem that traps you, Sam, where you are. From a position of apparent informed authority he cannot recognise that the adjectives he should have chosen instead of "contemporary and relevant" are "conflicted and obviously biased as one of the few that benefit from Sutton's unfair management of the system".

I can go on with anecdote after anecdote, but they are all the same and make the same point. Wiggins is not going to spill the beans on anything. You will still be waiting at doomsday. As to the "why he cannot", you just need to study how the omerta works.

So it is not that we don't know the plot or the storyline becasue the great oracle hasn't spoken. Even if he does it will just be some more nonsense like the other day. To some of us the story is so obvious that we could watch a silent movie version of it without music and we would know exactly what was going on.
One man's dysdopia ... is another man's youtopia, FTF.

If you can save us all, I call shotgun.

If no can do ... we'll figure it out.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Freddythefrog said:
Oh look - well who'd have thunkked it. Here is view from BC press man Blazing Saddles AKA Felix Lowe as he posts his biased nonsense over at Bike Radar as the Shane Sutton debacle exploded in April 2016.
The Blazing Saddles on Bike Radar isn't Felix Lowe.
Many thanks. I have removed the reference to Felix.
 
In BBC interview just showed, Wiggins said he was disappointed in what Sutton said i.e. not being ethical and said Sutton knows full well why he was taking it (medical reasons), and he only took it four times as documented with TUEs etc, not the nine times the anonymous source states. Says he has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Stated it was a deliberate attempt to smear and damage him by the anonymous source. Even though I'm not a fan of his he has a fair point about this source, they should have identified him/her and asked them to provide evidence to back up what they were stating, otherwise it is just unprovable slander, which Wiggins/Sky have no come back due to parliamentary privilege.
 
Re:

bigcog said:
In BBC interview just showed, Wiggins said he was disappointed in what Sutton said i.e. not being ethical and said Sutton knows full well why he was taking it (medical reasons), and he only took it four times as documented with TUEs etc, not the nine times the anonymous source states. Says he has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Stated it was a deliberate attempt to smear and damage him by the anonymous source. Even though I'm not a fan of his he has a fair point about this source, they should have identified him/her and asked them to provide evidence to back up what they were stating, otherwise it is just unprovable slander, which Wiggins/Sky have no come back due to parliamentary privilege.
Of course journalists and the like should never give up their sources - But you are right the Parliamentary Commitee should require a higher level of evidence to be printed in a report - But of course this Parliamentary Commitee is virtuous and snow white.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bigcog said:
In BBC interview just showed, Wiggins said he was disappointed in what Sutton said i.e. not being ethical and said Sutton knows full well why he was taking it (medical reasons), and he only took it four times as documented with TUEs etc, not the nine times the anonymous source states. Says he has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Stated it was a deliberate attempt to smear and damage him by the anonymous source. Even though I'm not a fan of his he has a fair point about this source, they should have identified him/her and asked them to provide evidence to back up what they were stating, otherwise it is just unprovable slander, which Wiggins/Sky have no come back due to parliamentary privilege.
Of course journalists and the like should never give up their sources - But you are right the Parliamentary Commitee should require a higher level of evidence to be printed in a report - But of course this Parliamentary Commitee is virtuous and snow white.
This is some of the evidence:

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Culture,%20Media%20and%20Sport/Combatting%20Doping%20in%20Sport/written/69004.html

Most of it or all of it could have been written by someone on here. It is not particularly compelling from what I can see.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
It's not hard to work out who the confidential source is

Consider who appeared before the DCMS committee and denied a direct question about doping during their career. Then consider the potentially serious consequences to lying to parliament. Then imagine that the DCMS committee is made aware of witnesses who saw the individual in question dope back in the day

So now the DCMS committee has considerable leverage over that individual. They make him an offer he can't refuse. We'll gloss over the lies and keep your name out of it if you tell us in private what was really going on
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
yaco said:
bigcog said:
In BBC interview just showed, Wiggins said he was disappointed in what Sutton said i.e. not being ethical and said Sutton knows full well why he was taking it (medical reasons), and he only took it four times as documented with TUEs etc, not the nine times the anonymous source states. Says he has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Stated it was a deliberate attempt to smear and damage him by the anonymous source. Even though I'm not a fan of his he has a fair point about this source, they should have identified him/her and asked them to provide evidence to back up what they were stating, otherwise it is just unprovable slander, which Wiggins/Sky have no come back due to parliamentary privilege.
Of course journalists and the like should never give up their sources - But you are right the Parliamentary Commitee should require a higher level of evidence to be printed in a report - But of course this Parliamentary Commitee is virtuous and snow white.
This is some of the evidence:

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Culture,%20Media%20and%20Sport/Combatting%20Doping%20in%20Sport/written/69004.html

Most of it or all of it could have been written by someone on here. It is not particularly compelling from what I can see.
So according to the 'whistlleblower' the jiffy bag did contain flumacil after all :confused:

Good old Dave, telling the truth all along :D
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
It's not hard to work out who the confidential source is

Consider who appeared before the DCMS committee and denied a direct question about doping during their career. Then consider the potentially serious consequences to lying to parliament. Then imagine that the DCMS committee is made aware of witnesses who saw the individual in question dope back in the day

So now the DCMS committee has considerable leverage over that individual. They make him an offer he can't refuse. We'll gloss over the lies and keep your name out of it if you tell us in private what was really going on
Wow. The most elaborate explanation is always best. No one believed it was Fabio Bartalucci anyway, so why not go full genius on the conspiracy theory?

BTW what is the punishment for telling porkies to a Commons committee? Cause I think I read a Committee report this morning that accused Brailsford of doing just that...
 
Re:

bigcog said:
In BBC interview just showed, Wiggins said he was disappointed in what Sutton said i.e. not being ethical and said Sutton knows full well why he was taking it (medical reasons), and he only took it four times as documented with TUEs etc, not the nine times the anonymous source states. Says he has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Stated it was a deliberate attempt to smear and damage him by the anonymous source. Even though I'm not a fan of his he has a fair point about this source, they should have identified him/her and asked them to provide evidence to back up what they were stating, otherwise it is just unprovable slander, which Wiggins/Sky have no come back due to parliamentary privilege.
but the source has been right in all they have said except maybe the 9 times rather than 4 which we don't really know the truth about anyway. Sky admitted to the Jiffy Bag. Anyone with any common sense knows darn well you don't get someone from back in Manchester to travel all that way to deliver something that they could have bought themselves at a pharmacy near them. Sky and Wiggins are as guilty as sin. Not counting their lies about their supposed no needles policy. The poor record keeping by Freeman who just happened to have his laptop stolen as well is incredibly handy for them too, don't you think? They have been caught out lying so much why should we believe them when they say they're innocent?

On circumstantial evidence they are guilty.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
Occam's razor? Wiggo & Sky used everything they could from the "grey zone".
Sky used the best legitimate healthcare available to make sure that their athletes were in the best condition. Just like every other serious pro sports team.

Other sports are mature about this. They recognise that an athlete will do (legally) what it takes to be on the 'start line' in the best health. It's just cycling that lusts after doping scandals that this is questioned. 'Grey zones' are just created by people who want a doping story without actual doping.
 
...called out Virenque, just as bad, cheated to glory and nobility. He played with the idea of sportsmanship, so British, and if he lied...and I think that he did, he's a disgrace to the very values of an English man. Something that even the Frenchies like me deeply respect.

He has no way out, he will lie until he gets his face rubbed in the feces of what he did. I'm not a subject of HRM, but I guess that many will ask for him to spend some time in the Tower of London.

He should spill the beans. Come clean (somewhat). Maybe he was taken advantage of. Something...
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Robert5091 said:
Occam's razor? Wiggo & Sky used everything they could from the "grey zone".
Sky used the best legitimate healthcare available to make sure that their athletes were in the best condition. Just like every other serious pro sports team.

Other sports are mature about this. They recognise that an athlete will do (legally) what it takes to be on the 'start line' in the best health. It's just cycling that lusts after doping scandals that this is questioned. 'Grey zones' are just created by people who want a doping story without actual doping.
How do we know what kind of healthcare they got when all the records have been lost. lol
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Robert5091 said:
Occam's razor? Wiggo & Sky used everything they could from the "grey zone".
Sky used the best legitimate healthcare available to make sure that their athletes were in the best condition. Just like every other serious pro sports team.

Other sports are mature about this. They recognise that an athlete will do (legally) what it takes to be on the 'start line' in the best health. It's just cycling that lusts after doping scandals that this is questioned. 'Grey zones' are just created by people who want a doping story without actual doping.
C'mon, Parker ... if that's your real made up online name! :mad:

Who's your ammonium carbonate supplier!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Spot ... feckin .... on. ;)
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
Parker said:
Robert5091 said:
Occam's razor? Wiggo & Sky used everything they could from the "grey zone".
Sky used the best legitimate healthcare available to make sure that their athletes were in the best condition. Just like every other serious pro sports team.

Other sports are mature about this. They recognise that an athlete will do (legally) what it takes to be on the 'start line' in the best health. It's just cycling that lusts after doping scandals that this is questioned. 'Grey zones' are just created by people who want a doping story without actual doping.
How do we know what kind of healthcare they got when all the records have been lost. lol
That's the whole point ... in a nut's shell ... VR. You don't. It's what you do with not knowing that really matters ... on here ... and everywhere. ;)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Robert5091 said:
Occam's razor? Wiggo & Sky used everything they could from the "grey zone".
Sky used the best legitimate healthcare available to make sure that their athletes were in the best doped up alien like condition. Just like every other serious pro sports team likes to dope athletes ... Other sports are mature about this. They rope a dope dope.
There, fixed a few things for you :)
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Anyone catch the headlines of the early morning edition of The Times?

"The Clinic Has Lost Repect for Wiggo" :surprised:

TDF, World Championship and Olympic medals winner Sir Bradley Wiggins is realing today after Mac Bindle, Clinic spoke person, implied online that ... "The Clinic does not respect Wiggo." :surprised:
 
That was a none too cinvincing interview by Wiggins. Where did he say amything that was 'going to shock a few people' like he claimed he would last year whenever the process was complete?

He seems far more concerned with who blew the whistle and their motives rather than the actual malpractices employed to give him a competitive advantage.

Who were the other select riders who benefitted from this programme with the intent of supporting Wiggins in his pursuit of tour victory. The irony is that should he be stripped of the tour (which he should) then Froome picks up his 5th tour to join the pantheon of greats.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Alp73, this idea you have that the stories and revelations about Sky & Wiggins only play in the Clinic is a fallacy. The average cycling fan is neither ignorant nor stupid. Ethics, practising what you preach and being seen to win 'fairly' matter, even in the contorted world of pro sport, and reputations really are at stake with these kind of issues, at a broad level across the fan and even general sporting public spectrum, and not just amongst the hardcore supporters and 'tin-foil hat' brigades.

Proof? As a small example, here are the top comments from two stories on the parliamentary committee report published on Facebook by SBS, the tv station that covers most cycling in Australia, made by general fans. You can't just write it off as all good old Aussie Pom bashing (though I'll grant there's prob a little of that!), 'cause both Porte and Rogers were at the centre of the 2012 Sky Tour result:

"I said it before and I say it again: TUE is a carte blanche for cheating. TUEs should be taken out. If a rider is too sick to perform without drugs, then don’t compete at all. Not everybody is born to do high performance sports!"

"For a team who threw millions at 'marginal gains', yoi would have thought they could have spent a few quid on a decent medical record keeping system..."

"Couple that with the fact that British Cyclings own researched showed the economic potential of wiggins winning the tour rather than froome, they were going to do whatever was possible to get wiggins over the line. Including large injections over a steroid. There’s a real argument to be made for cycling to stop drug testing, it’s a pointless waste of money"

"So any comments from Richie Porte and Michael 'Dodger' Rogers about their preparation for the 2012 Tour de France...cause that Rogers was insanely good. Too good!"

"Ok- what happens now regarding all the past exploits with SKY and all involved. This doesn’t surprise me at all but disappointing. It is simple- rule out SKY from all competition."

"Time for a change at the top of that team, I’m sure we’ll see Sky’s and GB’s incredible performances slip away..."

"Yeah where are all there fans now saying how great they are and believing in their marginal bulls**t"

"You will never stop drugs everyone is doing it"

"Nothing has changed. Now it’s Froome and Salbutamol."

"get your popcorn out sit back and enjoy"

"A right laughing stock there are. Lies and more lies, you've been found out. Team Sly"

"Look back at your (Wiggins') previous interview on this where you say "I only wanted to stay on a level playing field". Code for sweet i can cheat legally."

"Crossed no ethical lines? What do you call using a bulls**t TUE to dose up on gear that would normally be banned. He really looked like he was suffering badly from asthma- NOT"

"No just skirted really close to it and bent it a bit more than the average fan would think was right."

"With such scrutiny of top athlete performances I find it hard to believe professionals and their medical staff wouldn’t keep every shred of evidence to support their operations just in case anything came up. Truth is, no one in their right mind would keep evidence of potentially questionable stuff though, that’s why it’s never available."

Yeah it’s just Facebook, in one little corner of the world, but look at the comments under any published article in a cycling-focused medium and you will find much the same. They’re not cherry-picked either; comments supporting Sky, or saying that what they did is small cheese, are simply rare.

Bottom line is people are informed, they know what has gone on, and they draw reasonable conclusions and opinions on it. In the general cycling community at least, Wiggins & Brailsford's reps are toast.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Paul Kimmage has just re-posted this 2012 article about Wiggo's on Twitter...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2177405/Bradley-Wiggins-battle-cyclings-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html

Whole thing is well worth a read but some stand-out quotes:

"When he had finished speaking [in 2007] there was almost a round of applause. Wiggins had just delivered one of the most impressive anti-doping speeches in the history of the sport. And then something quite curious happened

Where [in 2009] had the great anti-doping crusader gone? Was his fourth place in the Tour that year — an outstanding achievement — a sign the problem had been solved? And so it was for the three seasons that followed. The faster Bradley pedalled, the less we heard from the angry young man we loved

But how [in 2012] did we get here? What happened to that weighty tome in Brailsford’s office with all those lofty ambitions and goals? What happened to zero tolerance? What happened to openness and transparency? What happened to only hiring British doctors who had worked outside the sport? Was that really too much to ask?

Here’s the question again: Was [Wiggo's] Tour de France [win in 2012] clean? Here’s the tragedy: I don’t know if the public’s [negative] answer would have changed since [Armstrong's win in] 2006"
 
Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

The parliamentary report stated that no anti doping violations have taken place but sky have 'crossed an ethical boundary' Team Sky are a privately funded team, why do the government feel it necessary to stick their nose in?

Professional sport is result orientated, there are rules in place, if no rule has been broken, why does it matter? professional teams will always go as far as they can up to the line, this happens in all sports. If a footballer dives in the penalty area to get a penalty, that is crossing an ethical line, but there isn't this fervour to brandish them a cheat to this extent.

If I am not mistaken, TUE's have to be granted by a panel of experts after the medical facts are presented to them? if that panel have the wool pulled over there eyes and grant a TUE, then surely that is where the spotlight should be? the team have only done what they can to tip the balance in their favour, at the end of then day a board of medical professionals were presented with evidence and signed off on the TUE's why then is Bradley Wiggins being branded a cheat? Why is the board that grant the TUE's not been held accountable? And surely if their medical expertise resulted in the granting of the TUE's, how is this now such a big issue? surely some kind of medical need had to be established? and if it cannot be established then the TUE system needs a massive overhaul and that should be the story, not a team working within the system that was in front of them

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

Caffeine is a limited drug during competition as well, but if riders choose to use inflated levels and drink 30 espressos before training that is surely no different?

I am just so confused why everyone is piling on as if Bradley Wiggins and Sky are the same as Lance and USPS, they systematically were using EPO and blood bags which were illegal

All I see Sky and Wiggins guilty of is studying the rules of the game better than others (or finding loopholes in the rulebook) none of which are illegal. Have they been found guilty of breaking any rules on this matter? if not, to me it is a non-story. Professional sportsmen and teams will use any small advantage to win, as professional sport is result based, like it or not

BTW this is not a Team Sky/Wiggins love fest. I would have the same puzzled response is this were any team or rider
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re:

jarvo said:
Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

The parliamentary report stated that no anti doping violations have taken place but sky have 'crossed an ethical boundary' Team Sky are a privately funded team, why do the government feel it necessary to stick their nose in?

Professional sport is result orientated, there are rules in place, if no rule has been broken, why does it matter? professional teams will always go as far as they can up to the line, this happens in all sports. If a footballer dives in the penalty area to get a penalty, that is crossing an ethical line, but there isn't this fervour to brandish them a cheat to this extent.

If I am not mistaken, TUE's have to be granted by a panel of experts after the medical facts are presented to them? if that panel have the wool pulled over there eyes and grant a TUE, then surely that is where the spotlight should be? the team have only done what they can to tip the balance in their favour, at the end of then day a board of medical professionals were presented with evidence and signed off on the TUE's why then is Bradley Wiggins being branded a cheat? Why is the board that grant the TUE's not been held accountable? And surely if their medical expertise resulted in the granting of the TUE's, how is this now such a big issue? surely some kind of medical need had to be established? and if it cannot be established then the TUE system needs a massive overhaul and that should be the story, not a team working within the system that was in front of them

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

Caffeine is a limited drug during competition as well, but if riders choose to use inflated levels and drink 30 espressos before training that is surely no different?

I am just so confused why everyone is piling on as if Bradley Wiggins and Sky are the same as Lance and USPS, they systematically were using EPO and blood bags which were illegal

All I see Sky and Wiggins guilty of is studying the rules of the game better than others (or finding loopholes in the rulebook) none of which are illegal. Have they been found guilty of breaking any rules on this matter? if not, to me it is a non-story. Professional sportsmen and teams will use any small advantage to win, as professional sport is result based, like it or not

BTW this is not a Team Sky/Wiggins love fest. I would have the same puzzled response is this were any team or rider

i guess it depends on whether you believe that a team/rider deciding to invent a medical condition that required a TUE for a drug that is not permitted in competition, and that confers an advantage to said rider, is important or not?
the testing protocols have caught up with the blood bag doping scam and so no professional team is greedy/crazy enough to try that these days - micro dosing perhaps is more a possibility
the committee investigation was into all sports not just cycling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS