• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 61 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 5, 2010
1,018
0
0
There is no indication that the CADF - or the UCI have ever investigated this matter as far as I am aware. They have looked into whether or not a TUE was issued, but not whether or not it was appropriate or whether Sky breached any other rules.

They correctly left that to UKAD - who investigated, were blocked by Sky at every turn and basically let it drop.

The UCI have since put in place the CADF to investigate anti doping matters for the exact reason that National Anti Doping Organisations are not doing the job properly so they want an independant body ... and now that another government agnecy have investigated the circumstances and have casts doubt over the findings of UKAD, it is entirely appropriate that the UCI ask the independant CADF to look into it.

We are crying out for people to actually look into the facts here. How can you then complain when the appropriate body does? If Sky truly have broken no rules, there is no issue with CADF looking into it.
 
May 25, 2015
40
0
0
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Can sir Brad be unsired? The evidence is mounting he's not worthy. If Froome is cleared for "one more puff for the road" he might take the vacant sir as Sir Dawg.
I'd skip that and go straight for Viscount of Hound.
 
Aug 3, 2010
633
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
this isn't how he should be using his authority.
What authority? Seriously, no joking here, but what authority? He's head of the UCI, that's all. McQuaid needed the Disciplinary Commission and the Licence Commission to try and do his dirty work on Boonen and Katusha. Cookson fell back on the Licence Commission when he wanted a fight with Astana. The people with 'power' in the Froome case are CADF, LADS, the Disciplinary Commission. All Lappartient has is PR.
Authority isn't just about power and force.

Good leaders can be authoritative and influential without always relying on force.

He has the authority to make representation to Team Sky/Froome on behalf of the UCI, if he believes the sport is being damaged.

Of course, I'm not saying he has the 'power' to force anyone to do or act in a way that's any more than rule compliant, but I agree with Froome 100% here, he should be making personal representation direct to the parties involved, rather than just posturing for the media.
If Lap did what you are calling for, you would change your tune. I bet you would be accusing him of meddling in CADF, LADS affairs. This "discussion" has become a joke in all related threads thanks to a handful of posters.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
brownbobby said:
fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
this isn't how he should be using his authority.
What authority? Seriously, no joking here, but what authority? He's head of the UCI, that's all. McQuaid needed the Disciplinary Commission and the Licence Commission to try and do his dirty work on Boonen and Katusha. Cookson fell back on the Licence Commission when he wanted a fight with Astana. The people with 'power' in the Froome case are CADF, LADS, the Disciplinary Commission. All Lappartient has is PR.
Authority isn't just about power and force.

Good leaders can be authoritative and influential without always relying on force.

He has the authority to make representation to Team Sky/Froome on behalf of the UCI, if he believes the sport is being damaged.

Of course, I'm not saying he has the 'power' to force anyone to do or act in a way that's any more than rule compliant, but I agree with Froome 100% here, he should be making personal representation direct to the parties involved, rather than just posturing for the media.
If Lap did what you are calling for, you would change your tune. I bet you would be accusing him of meddling in CADF, LADS affairs. This "discussion" has become a joke in all related threads thanks to a handful of posters.
Nice try, but you have no idea what I'd think and when I'd think it.

Go find someone else to pick a fight with, I'm not your man.
 
Re:

AussieGoddess said:
There is no indication that the CADF - or the UCI have ever investigated this matter as far as I am aware. They have looked into whether or not a TUE was issued, but not whether or not it was appropriate or whether Sky breached any other rules.

They correctly left that to UKAD - who investigated, were blocked by Sky at every turn and basically let it drop.

The UCI have since put in place the CADF to investigate anti doping matters for the exact reason that National Anti Doping Organisations are not doing the job properly so they want an independant body ... and now that another government agnecy have investigated the circumstances and have casts doubt over the findings of UKAD, it is entirely appropriate that the UCI ask the independant CADF to look into it.

We are crying out for people to actually look into the facts here. How can you then complain when the appropriate body does? If Sky truly have broken no rules, there is no issue with CADF looking into it.
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
 
Jul 19, 2009
753
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
 
Re: Re:

poupou said:
samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
Or both?

No doubt Wiggins can be treated for asthma but did he need the full scale pulp fiction treatment?
 
Re: Re:

poupou said:
samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
I simply can't believe that. UKAD were investigating the same substance in those TUEs claimed to be in the jiffy bag. Unless there were legal reasons, it would be one of the first steps in your investigation surely. The date on 2011 one is just a few weeks after Dauphine? The first thing I would do is pull up all his test results, his TUEs and whatever medical history is on that rider in ADAMS and his ABP and cross-reference his TUEs with supporting documents and sample results. It's probably already happened anyway, you would expect to have anyway for a rider at that Olymipic level.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
poupou said:
samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
I simply can't believe that. UKAD were investigating the same substance in those TUEs claimed to be in the jiffy bag. Unless there were legal reasons, it would be one of the first steps in your investigation surely. The date on 2011 one is just a few weeks after Dauphine? The first thing I would do is pull up all his test results, his TUEs and whatever medical history is on that rider in ADAMS and his ABP and cross-reference his TUEs with supporting documents and sample results. It's probably already happened anyway, you would expect to have anyway for a rider at that Olymipic level.
This is the UKAD you’re talking about... they didn’t appear very interested until Collins hauled them in front of the Committee.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
poupou said:
In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
Perhaps they could stare deeply into his soul and judge his intent? That'd be profound...
"Deeply into his DARK soul" ... I know that's what really really meant, right, FMK? ;)

Already being done here, mate. Clinic could provide results to WADA/UCI/UKAD ...whomever ... for a fee, of course. :lol:
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If that's not trolling
what is?

(PS: Mods I'm sorry to go off topic for once)
pot ..........kettle......sorry!......as if

i'm sorry...............I don't see any investigation into TUEs going anywhere...it's all done

and dusted ..signed off by the doc...official approval at UCI....if the guy at UCI

is not so 'straight up'...that's UCI problem not team sky?

Mark L
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
samhocking said:
poupou said:
samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
I simply can't believe that. UKAD were investigating the same substance in those TUEs claimed to be in the jiffy bag. Unless there were legal reasons, it would be one of the first steps in your investigation surely. The date on 2011 one is just a few weeks after Dauphine? The first thing I would do is pull up all his test results, his TUEs and whatever medical history is on that rider in ADAMS and his ABP and cross-reference his TUEs with supporting documents and sample results. It's probably already happened anyway, you would expect to have anyway for a rider at that Olymipic level.
This is the UKAD you’re talking about... they didn’t appear very interested until Collins hauled them in front of the Committee.
I'm still amazed they investigated at all. How many NADOs have investigated athletes with no evidence of a doping violation and came out the other end exactly as the begun still with no doping violation?

I'm still flabbergasted the Committee, considering the additional freedom under that paper they have to work with can reach a conclusion about a rider/team they are investigating and that final report not make one single reference to anything that rider has said. They have statements from every other player that might have been involved, other than the actual player is the reason for investigating at all? It really is unprecedented. They don't even have a statement from the original whistleblower to Daily Mail, which sparked everything. You could suggest any one of use could fire a similar anonymous claim of a suspected ADRV without any evidence and expect a UKAD and Parliamentary-level investigation and report into its claim. It's so ridiculous.

The anomaly in the Comitttes conclusion and several areas they simply lack understanding of how cycling operates in their main conclusion shows a complete lack of understanding of WADAs TUE system. They, if anything are suggesting WADA are complicit in allowing Team Sky to enhance performance legally via a system designed to address medical need in sports.

Basically the Committee have concluded:
"We believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky within the WADA rules to enhance the performance of riders and not just treat medical need"
That conclusion is totally contradictory because WADA rules and TUE system is designed to address medical need, not address performance enhancement, so the whole thing is largely hot air from any legal investigation starting point be that UKAD/CADF/WADA. For Lappartient to take that conclusion and put UCI on the legal line is farcical. Sky & WADA will destroy them at CAS without questions unless there is some actual evidence rather than this continued debate about ethics.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
thehog said:
samhocking said:
poupou said:
samhocking said:
ADAMS is not blocked to NADOs afaik? UKAD can pull up all 8 missing attachments to Wiggins TUE's without needing Sky any time they want to I would imagine during an investigation? They will need their own laptop though!

It was L'Équipe who said CADF/LADS had investigated each TUE, but I don't know the original source for that.
There is different levels of investigation, the first is to check the basic, that is probably what was done at that time. In regard of what is known today, something more profound can be done : was it a medical need or a TUE for doping?
I simply can't believe that. UKAD were investigating the same substance in those TUEs claimed to be in the jiffy bag. Unless there were legal reasons, it would be one of the first steps in your investigation surely. The date on 2011 one is just a few weeks after Dauphine? The first thing I would do is pull up all his test results, his TUEs and whatever medical history is on that rider in ADAMS and his ABP and cross-reference his TUEs with supporting documents and sample results. It's probably already happened anyway, you would expect to have anyway for a rider at that Olymipic level.
This is the UKAD you’re talking about... they didn’t appear very interested until Collins hauled them in front of the Committee.
I'm still amazed they investigated at all. How many NADOs have investigated athletes with no evidence of a doping violation and came out the other end exactly as the begun still with no doping violation?

I'm still flabbergasted the Committee, considering the additional freedom under that paper they have to work with can reach a conclusion about a rider/team they are investigating and that final report not make one single reference to anything that rider has said. They have statements from every other player that might have been involved, other than the actual player is the reason for investigating at all? It really is unprecedented. They don't even have a statement from the original whistleblower to Daily Mail, which sparked everything. You could suggest any one of use could fire a similar anonymous claim of a suspected ADRV without any evidence and expect a UKAD and Parliamentary-level investigation and report into its claim. It's so ridiculous.

The anomaly in the Comitttes conclusion and several areas they simply lack understanding of how cycling operates in their main conclusion shows a complete lack of understanding of WADAs TUE system. They, if anything are suggesting WADA are complicit in allowing Team Sky to enhance performance legally via a system designed to address medical need in sports.

Basically the Committee have concluded:
"We believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky within the WADA rules to enhance the performance of riders and not just treat medical need"
That conclusion is totally contradictory because WADA rules and TUE system is designed to address medical need, not address performance enhancement, so the whole thing is largely hot air from any legal investigation starting point be that UKAD/CADF/WADA. For Lappartient to take that conclusion and put UCI on the legal line is farcical. Sky & WADA will destroy them at CAS without questions unless there is some actual evidence rather than this continued debate about ethics.
Despite all that, UKAD had no interest because generally that’s what they do; not investigate. I don’t think your other comments with regards to Lappartient are warranted. At least he is some respect in taking the issue seriously. The alternative would be Cookson and he’d be asleep.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Despite all that, UKAD had no interest because generally that’s what they do; not investigate. I don’t think your other comments with regards to Lappartient are warranted. At least he is some respects taking the issue seriously. The alternative would be Cookson and he’d be asleep.
Uncle Brian sleeps

Brailsfraud sends Uncle Brian a "Time to restore Sky's reputation" memo

Uncle Brian wakes up and does a presser

Uncle Brian sleeps
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Uncle Brian sleeps

Peter King churns out his 2012 culture of fear report

Brailsfraud sends Uncle Brian a "Bury this ASAP" memo

Uncle Brian wakes up and UK Sport are none the wiser

Uncle Brian sleeps
 
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Uncle Brian sleeps

Peter King churns out his 2012 culture of fear report

Brailsfraud sends Uncle Brian a "Bury this ASAP" memo

Uncle Brian wakes up and UK Sport are none the wiser

Uncle Brian sleeps
It’s shocking to look back now and realise just how bad Cookson was. A good lesson for all aspiring leaders, don’t be a Cookosn! :lol:
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Uncle Brian sleeps

Peter King churns out his 2012 culture of fear report

Brailsfraud sends Uncle Brian a "Bury this ASAP" memo

Uncle Brian wakes up and UK Sport are none the wiser

Uncle Brian sleeps
It’s shocking to look back now and realise just how bad Cookson was. A good lesson for all aspiring leaders, don’t be a Cookosn! :lol:
Ironic that Uncle Brian's "time to restore Sky's reputation" presser, when he (but not the public) knew about Froome's AAF, will be the defining moment in terms of his own reputation
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
[quote="Despite all that, UKAD had no interest because generally that’s what they do; not investigate. I don’t think your other comments with regards to Lappartient are warranted. At least he is some respect in taking the issue seriously. The alternative would be Cookson and he’d be asleep.
True. UKAD only care about bankrupting themselves over their own, in boxing, not cycling lol!

I think the Lappartient comment is warranted. He seems to be suggesting CADF is going to investigate the legal matter based on the ethical conclusion of the Committees report that decided it was with the rules. I feel perhaps wasting his effort on a sticky plaster with Sky, when the root of the problem is clearly one of WADA & UCI rules will be temporary, much like his presidency is looking already.
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
thehog said:
[quote="Despite all that, UKAD had no interest because generally that’s what they do; not investigate. I don’t think your other comments with regards to Lappartient are warranted. At least he is some respect in taking the issue seriously. The alternative would be Cookson and he’d be asleep.
True. UKAD only care about bankrupting themselves over their own, in boxing, not cycling lol!

I think the Lappartient comment is warranted. He seems to be suggesting CADF is going to investigate the legal matter based on the ethical conclusion of the Committees report that decided it was with the rules. I feel perhaps wasting his effort on a sticky plaster with Sky, when the root of the problem is clearly one of WADA & UCI rules will be temporary, much like his presidency is looking already.
Whereas Uncle Brian's presidency was an 8 year lock, yes

Oopsie!
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
samhocking said:
thehog said:
[quote="Despite all that, UKAD had no interest because generally that’s what they do; not investigate. I don’t think your other comments with regards to Lappartient are warranted. At least he is some respect in taking the issue seriously. The alternative would be Cookson and he’d be asleep.
True. UKAD only care about bankrupting themselves over their own, in boxing, not cycling lol!

I think the Lappartient comment is warranted. He seems to be suggesting CADF is going to investigate the legal matter based on the ethical conclusion of the Committees report that decided it was with the rules. I feel perhaps wasting his effort on a sticky plaster with Sky, when the root of the problem is clearly one of WADA & UCI rules will be temporary, much like his presidency is looking already.
Whereas Uncle Brian's presidency was an 8 year lock, yes

Oopsie!
Brian messed up the party for everyone. The Brailsford / Sky roadshow would have kept on going with Cookson on his selfie drive. Hilarious that Cookson has no idea what was coming, he was so busy being oblivious he was oblivious to losing by landslide.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts