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

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 62 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Changing the topic there guys, what Lappartient has said has nothing to do with Cookson. The issue is Lappartient has confirmed he wishes to investigate Sky's ethics using CADF (Anti-Doping). He is in for an impossible ride. He will actually be investigating himself because it was the UCI that granted the TUE if the TUE is decided to be unethical.

Hi only way out legally, will be Wiggins team fabricated the whole asthma an allergy 'story'. The problem in doing so, is that trail goes all the way back to French Federation when they were issuing TUEs to Wigins for Corticosteroids too, as well as the Olympic Committee. Lappartient will essentially be investigating the ethics of French Federation, Olympic Committee and UCI in order to prove Wiggins asthma and allergy is fabricated.
 
samhocking said:
Changing the topic there guys, what Lappartient has said has nothing to do with Cookson. The issue is Lappartient has confirmed he wishes to investigate Sky's ethics using CADF (Anti-Doping). He is in for an impossible ride. He will actually be investigating himself because it was the UCI that granted the TUE if the TUE is decided to be unethical.

Hi only way out legally, will be Wiggins team fabricated the whole asthma an allergy 'story'. The problem in doing so, is that trail goes all the way back to French Federation when they were issuing TUEs to Wigins for Corticosteroids too, as well as the Olympic Committee. Lappartient will essentially be investigating the ethics of French Federation, Olympic Committee and UCI in order to prove Wiggins asthma and allergy is fabricated.
Huh? The French Federation? Wigins? :confused:
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
ARTHUR: Hello.

MAN: 'Allo. Whoo is eet?

ARTHUR: I am King Bradley and these are the Knights of the Team Sky Table. Whose castle is this?

MAN: This is the castle of of my master, President Lappertient.

ARTHUR: Please go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest, and if he will give us TUEs for this night he can join us in our quest for the Holy Grail.

MAN: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. He's already got one, you see?

ARTHUR: What?

GALAHAD: He says they've already got one!

[They are stunned.]

ARTHUR: Are you sure he's got one?

MAN: Oh yes. It's very nice

[CUT TO BATTLEMENTS. THE TAUNTER turns to some others.]

MAN: I told him we already got one.

[They all giggle.]

ARTHUR: Well ... can we come up and have a look?

MAN: Of course not! You are English pigs.

ARTHUR: Well, what are you then?

MAN: I'm French. Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king.

GALAHAD: What are you doing in England?

MAN: Mind your own business.

ARTHUR: If you will not show us the Grail we shall storm your castle.

[Murmurs of assent.]

MAN: You don't frighten us, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Bradley-king, you and your silly English K...kaniggets.

[He puts hands to his ears and blows a raspberry.]

GALAHAD: What a strange person.

ARTHUR: Now look here, my good man!

MAN: I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

GALAHAD: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?

MAN: No. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

ARTHUR: Now this is your last chance. I've been more than reasonab...

MAN: Fetchez la vache!

GUARD: Quoi?

MAN: Fetchez la vache!

[CUT BACK TO battlements. A cow is led out of a stall.]

[CUT BACK TO ARTHUR.]

ARTHUR: Now that is my final offer. If you are not prepared to agree to my demands I shall be forced to take ... Oh Christ!

[A cow comes flying over the battlements, lowing aggressively. The cow lands on DR RICHARD FREEMAN, squashing him completely.]

ROBIN: What a cruel thing to do.

BEDEVERE: (Choking back tears) It hadn't even been milked.
 
gillan1969 said:
so...how transparency works.....

1. Sky have gagging orders in place

2. the doc lost the laptop and won't speak

3. zorzoli won't speak

it's as though these guys have....eh.....something to hide
Could be right, Gillian. But what if it's only Marginal Grains ... you know ... like quinoa, bulgar, etc. The Clinic would be quite right ... to be totally pissed ... if that's what it turns out to be. And I just wouldn't stand for it, mate. :)
 
Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
so...how transparency works.....

1. Sky have gagging orders in place

2. the doc lost the laptop and won't speak

3. zorzoli won't speak

it's as though these guys have....eh.....something to hide
Could be right, Gillian. But what if it's only Marginal Grains ... you know ... like quinoa, bulgar, etc. The Clinic would be quite right ... to be totally pissed ... if that's what it turns out to be. And I just wouldn't stand for it, mate. :)
moisturizer for Sutton.....he'd rather take down SKY than face his mates back home knowing that he uses a product for 'the sheilas' :)
 
Jan 15, 2013
863
0
0
samhocking said:
Changing the topic there guys, what Lappartient has said has nothing to do with Cookson. The issue is Lappartient has confirmed he wishes to investigate Sky's ethics using CADF (Anti-Doping). He is in for an impossible ride. He will actually be investigating himself because it was the UCI that granted the TUE if the TUE is decided to be unethical.

Hi only way out legally, will be Wiggins team fabricated the whole asthma an allergy 'story'. The problem in doing so, is that trail goes all the way back to French Federation when they were issuing TUEs to Wigins for Corticosteroids too, as well as the Olympic Committee. Lappartient will essentially be investigating the ethics of French Federation, Olympic Committee and UCI in order to prove Wiggins asthma and allergy is fabricated.
You still don't get it, and it's obvious you're choosing not to get it.

If Wiggins has asthma or allergies that still doesn't make his triamcinolone use legitimate. The standard asthma and allergy drugs (inhaled salbutamol in normal doses, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, antihistamines) don't even need TUEs these days, because a) they have minimal performance-enhancing effect and b) lots of people legitimately need those drugs (first couple of links I dug up like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764772/ and http://www.globalasthmareport.org/burden/burden.php suggest asthma prevalence of low to medium double figure % in most western countries) so it's an administrative pain for ADAs to issue TUEs for them. Most of them used to need TUEs though (basically everything except antihistamines), so it's not surprising that Wiggins was given TUEs for them back when he was riding for French teams (with a GT record of 123rd, 121st, DNF, 134th for the record).

In contrast, slow-release injected triamcinolone is not recommended for asthma and allergies, even though it effectively treats symptoms, due to its extreme and often dangerous potential side effects. It is however a fantastic drug for doping, because it causes weight loss even among fit people who have little fat to start with, strongly reduces inflammation and pain, and increases energy levels. It has a long history of doping use in cycling, and doping riders have a long history of using whatever excuse they can to get a TUE for it (and several have admitted that and testified to its effects - for David Millar called it the strongest drug he used in his career).

Let's say none of the above was true, and Wiggins was one of the sickest men of the peloton in 2012, struggling with allergy issues even after being treated with the allowed in-competition inhaled salbutamol, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, and antihistamines, and even if he was treated OOC with things like oral prednisolone (which is a strong drug only prescribed in short courses and when you're too sick to walk up a set of stairs or get on a bike, but is a recognised standard treatment at least, unlike triamcinolone, which is like using a rocket launcher to swat a fly).

If so he'd barely have made it to the end of stage 1 of a race in 2012, when in fact his pre-Tour record was:

(Feb) Volta ao Algarve: 3rd overall, 1st stage 5
(Mar) Paris–Nice: 1st overall, 1st points jersey, 1st stage 8
(Apr) Tour de Romandie: 1st overall, 1st stage 1, 1st stage 5
(Jun) Critérium du Dauphiné: 1st overall, 1st stage 4

If you still don't get it after than then I can't help you.
 
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
 
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
You’ve got to stop using what is “legally” correct in this context. There is no law being applied here. It’s purely a rule based system and that is all. Unless it was taken to the Europe Court after CAS, common law or any other law will not be applied, until then CAS, UCI etc. can fairly much interpret their own rules how they want, there is no legal precedence involved.
 
Re:

slosada said:
Someone chooses to discuss the "police" methods while everyone is talking about the "criminal" and his actions
WTF does 'talking' have to with it all?

Enough talking to sink a battleship. It's action that counts ... an as Sam points out, and I fully agree, the Cost-Benefit numbers (in all facets) don't look good for any further action on this front. The End.
 
Aug 3, 2010
633
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
slosada said:
Someone chooses to discuss the "police" methods while everyone is talking about the "criminal" and his actions
WTF does 'talking' have to with it all?

Enough talking to sink a battleship. It's action that counts ... an as Sam points out, and I fully agree, the Cost-Benefit numbers (in all facets) don't look good for any further action on this front. The End.
Now that you have declared the conversation is finished, I assume you will not be posting about it anymore.
 
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
it was issued by the UCI in 'good faith' after application by a doc who lost his laptop and won't speak...and may be getting disciplined by the BMA. It was also issued by a doc within the UCI who subsequently left after much controversy about his issuing of TUEs and who has been linked with an ex-SKY team doc in reference to enabling doping.

you and alpe eh...nothing to see here...please move on....you guys..you kill me!!..... :D
 
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
it was issued by the UCI in 'good faith' after application by a doc who lost his laptop and won't speak...and may be getting disciplined by the BMA. It was also issued by a doc within the UCI who subsequently left after much controversy about his issuing of TUEs and who has been linked with an ex-SKY team doc in reference to enabling doping.

you and alpe eh...nothing to see here...please move on....you guys..you kill me!!..... :D
A good rabbit dog will chase a rabbit all over the woods. But when the rabbit pops down the hole, the dog’s gotta decide whether to pop down the hole after it (whole feckin new ball game down there) ... or cut and run to save some energy for other chases. :geek:
 
vedrafjord said:
You still don't get it, and it's obvious you're choosing not to get it.

If Wiggins has asthma or allergies that still doesn't make his triamcinolone use legitimate. The standard asthma and allergy drugs (inhaled salbutamol in normal doses, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, antihistamines) don't even need TUEs these days, because a) they have minimal performance-enhancing effect and b) lots of people legitimately need those drugs (first couple of links I dug up like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764772/ and http://www.globalasthmareport.org/burden/burden.php suggest asthma prevalence of low to medium double figure % in most western countries) so it's an administrative pain for ADAs to issue TUEs for them. Most of them used to need TUEs though (basically everything except antihistamines), so it's not surprising that Wiggins was given TUEs for them back when he was riding for French teams (with a GT record of 123rd, 121st, DNF, 134th for the record).

In contrast, slow-release injected triamcinolone is not recommended for asthma and allergies, even though it effectively treats symptoms, due to its extreme and often dangerous potential side effects. It is however a fantastic drug for doping, because it causes weight loss even among fit people who have little fat to start with, strongly reduces inflammation and pain, and increases energy levels. It has a long history of doping use in cycling, and doping riders have a long history of using whatever excuse they can to get a TUE for it (and several have admitted that and testified to its effects - for David Millar called it the strongest drug he used in his career).

Let's say none of the above was true, and Wiggins was one of the sickest men of the peloton in 2012, struggling with allergy issues even after being treated with the allowed in-competition inhaled salbutamol, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, and antihistamines, and even if he was treated OOC with things like oral prednisolone (which is a strong drug only prescribed in short courses and when you're too sick to walk up a set of stairs or get on a bike, but is a recognised standard treatment at least, unlike triamcinolone, which is like using a rocket launcher to swat a fly).

If so he'd barely have made it to the end of stage 1 of a race in 2012, when in fact his pre-Tour record was:

(Feb) Volta ao Algarve: 3rd overall, 1st stage 5
(Mar) Paris–Nice: 1st overall, 1st points jersey, 1st stage 8
(Apr) Tour de Romandie: 1st overall, 1st stage 1, 1st stage 5
(Jun) Critérium du Dauphiné: 1st overall, 1st stage 4

If you still don't get it after than then I can't help you.
Team Sky - the best place to be when you're sick. The only team where being so sick you'd normally lie in bed, but instead you win GTs.
 
Ripper said:
vedrafjord said:
You still don't get it, and it's obvious you're choosing not to get it.

If Wiggins has asthma or allergies that still doesn't make his triamcinolone use legitimate. The standard asthma and allergy drugs (inhaled salbutamol in normal doses, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, antihistamines) don't even need TUEs these days, because a) they have minimal performance-enhancing effect and b) lots of people legitimately need those drugs (first couple of links I dug up like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764772/ and http://www.globalasthmareport.org/burden/burden.php suggest asthma prevalence of low to medium double figure % in most western countries) so it's an administrative pain for ADAs to issue TUEs for them. Most of them used to need TUEs though (basically everything except antihistamines), so it's not surprising that Wiggins was given TUEs for them back when he was riding for French teams (with a GT record of 123rd, 121st, DNF, 134th for the record).

In contrast, slow-release injected triamcinolone is not recommended for asthma and allergies, even though it effectively treats symptoms, due to its extreme and often dangerous potential side effects. It is however a fantastic drug for doping, because it causes weight loss even among fit people who have little fat to start with, strongly reduces inflammation and pain, and increases energy levels. It has a long history of doping use in cycling, and doping riders have a long history of using whatever excuse they can to get a TUE for it (and several have admitted that and testified to its effects - for David Millar called it the strongest drug he used in his career).

Let's say none of the above was true, and Wiggins was one of the sickest men of the peloton in 2012, struggling with allergy issues even after being treated with the allowed in-competition inhaled salbutamol, inhaled corticosteroids, nasal spray corticosteroids, and antihistamines, and even if he was treated OOC with things like oral prednisolone (which is a strong drug only prescribed in short courses and when you're too sick to walk up a set of stairs or get on a bike, but is a recognised standard treatment at least, unlike triamcinolone, which is like using a rocket launcher to swat a fly).

If so he'd barely have made it to the end of stage 1 of a race in 2012, when in fact his pre-Tour record was:

(Feb) Volta ao Algarve: 3rd overall, 1st stage 5
(Mar) Paris–Nice: 1st overall, 1st points jersey, 1st stage 8
(Apr) Tour de Romandie: 1st overall, 1st stage 1, 1st stage 5
(Jun) Critérium du Dauphiné: 1st overall, 1st stage 4

If you still don't get it after than then I can't help you.
Team Sky - the best place to be when you're sick. The only team where being so sick you'd normally lie in bed, but instead you win GTs.
Unless you've stomach issues..... then try Sunweb
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
"Bradley Wiggins and David Brailsford were both knighted at the end of 2012, the year of the London Olympics and Wiggo’s epic win in the Tour de France. Not looking such a bright idea now though. Wiggo and Brailsford are perfect examples of the rule that sports people shouldn’t be knighted while still on active duty. It’s just asking for trouble."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/knighting-bradley-wiggins-so-early-was-just-asking-for-trouble/
I love how you link an article when a journalists reflects on an event six years later, yet No questioning by the media of the bigger picture at that time - In how knighthoods and the like are handed out willy nilly by politicians ? All it does is reinforce how stupid UK politicians are in handing out these types of honours, especially to sports people and how the media performs hindsight heroics.
 
thehog said:
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
You’ve got to stop using what is “legally” correct in this context. There is no law being applied here. It’s purely a rule based system and that is all. Unless it was taken to the Europe Court after CAS, common law or any other law will not be applied, until then CAS, UCI etc. can fairly much interpret their own rules how they want, there is no legal precedence involved.
An ADRV is a legal matter based on WADA rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly i'm not using the term 'legal' in a criminal sense unless this goes beyond WADA and into that area, which there is no sign of yet anyway.
 
samhocking said:
thehog said:
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
You’ve got to stop using what is “legally” correct in this context. There is no law being applied here. It’s purely a rule based system and that is all. Unless it was taken to the Europe Court after CAS, common law or any other law will not be applied, until then CAS, UCI etc. can fairly much interpret their own rules how they want, there is no legal precedence involved.
An ADRV is a legal matter based on WADA rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly i'm not using the term 'legal' in a criminal sense unless this goes beyond WADA and into that area, which there is no sign of yet anyway.
Armstrong have any ADRVs?
 
Goodwin and RBS might be a good exemplar...plaudits and knighthoods based on very short termism

when it all falls apart, revisited

note for Sam...Goodwin was not charged with anything...but he crossed an ethical line...much like Wiggins and SDB have...we've moved beyond 'legal' in whatever sense you are using it...
 
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
thehog said:
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
You’ve got to stop using what is “legally” correct in this context. There is no law being applied here. It’s purely a rule based system and that is all. Unless it was taken to the Europe Court after CAS, common law or any other law will not be applied, until then CAS, UCI etc. can fairly much interpret their own rules how they want, there is no legal precedence involved.
An ADRV is a legal matter based on WADA rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly i'm not using the term 'legal' in a criminal sense unless this goes beyond WADA and into that area, which there is no sign of yet anyway.
Armstrong have any ADRVs?
Armstrong doesn't relate to Wiggins TUE whatsoever. Wiggins TUE is neither backdated, nor intra-articular, nor a cream or even an AAF, but directly applied for as intra-muscular to UCI, not backdated by UCI to cover for an intra-muscular disguised as a cream under TUE.
 
samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
thehog said:
samhocking said:
I know its history thanks. What you don't get, is that any anti-doping violation or investigation can only ever be a legal matter. The fact UCI seemingly want to investigate a team ethically for receiving a TUE they granted and WADA have not yet questioned UCI for yet to turn it into an anti-doping violation, means WADA will side with Sky if it came to that point, because as the committee and ukad concluded there have been no rule violations found, therefore legally there's really not much for UCI to fight with against Sky if that's what Lappartient wishes to do. If we add Lequipes comments the TUEs have already been investigated by CADF, it's difficult to understand what Lappartient is going on about without further evidence the TUE is either fraudulent for UCI to launch what will now be essentially a 3rd organisation investigating Team Sky for wrong-doing, the odds are very slim. I would say legally difficult to even try and have WADA on your side if it went to CAS to battle out the legitimacy of the TUE application regardless of UCI authorising it in fact. You could very well see WADA siding with Sky on this.
You’ve got to stop using what is “legally” correct in this context. There is no law being applied here. It’s purely a rule based system and that is all. Unless it was taken to the Europe Court after CAS, common law or any other law will not be applied, until then CAS, UCI etc. can fairly much interpret their own rules how they want, there is no legal precedence involved.
An ADRV is a legal matter based on WADA rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly i'm not using the term 'legal' in a criminal sense unless this goes beyond WADA and into that area, which there is no sign of yet anyway.
Armstrong have any ADRVs?
Armstrong doesn't relate to Wiggins TUE whatsoever. Wiggins TUE is neither backdated, nor intra-articular, nor a cream or even an AAF, but directly applied for as intra-muscular to UCI, not backdated by UCI to cover for an intra-muscular disguised as a cream under TUE.
Sam

You may not have noticed but we've moved on...TdF winners a now being caught not on AAF/ADRVs but on 'investigations' (well, other than Froome who seems to have failed the stupidity test - as ever, our hapless hero)

Travis went after Armstrong only after there was a case brought against him courtesy of Floyd. Wiggins via the 'whistleblower'. Indeed perhaps even Froome's AAF was going away until Brian left and a whistleblower intervened.....

the point is you can wax lyrical about the various doping authorities when in fact all we have learnt about them is how easy they are to circumvent...indeed looking at the UCI (at least under Hein), USSR, the IAAF and Conconi back in the day...they work for both sides (in some cases)..

The police, the House of Commons (yes, even the House of Commons), the BMA and journos are showing up the system as useless...

I'm not sure the sort of investigation the UCI are now talking about however it can only be a 'wider' investigation as we know it's these investigations which unveil the 'going's on'

The BMA's eventual findings on the Fantastically Forgetful Freeman may be enough to get the ball rolling........
 
Armstrong's doping was 20 years ago in a totally different anti-doping climate, half of it when EPO couldn't even be detected and TUE system was definitely broken when it came to allowing teams toi cover up intra-muscular injections with intra-articular injuries being faked for TUE sign-off or if they didn't even bother with that, backdating as a TUE for creams after the AAF like Armstrong. Perhaps you need to move on lol and get upto speed with how things work today, based on what Lappartient said! No matter, the point is UCI will have to investigate themselves in order to investigate Wiggins because they authorised the TUEs for intra-muscular use. Maybe in 20 years time other riders will say what happened at that time in Sky with Wiggins beyond his TUEs, but until then, if you want to assume some kind of Armstrong-like long-game investigation by Lappartient and CADF, he's simply cheap talking his own short-term politics, much like technical fraud. At this moment in time any investigation would have to be a legal matter based on WADA rules using evidence.
 
samhocking said:
Armstrong's doping was 20 years ago in a totally different anti-doping climate, half of it when EPO couldn't even be detected and TUE system was definitely broken when it came to allowing teams toi cover up intra-muscular injections with intra-articular injuries being faked for TUE sign-off or if they didn't even bother with that, backdating as a TUE for creams after the AAF like Armstrong. Perhaps you need to move on lol and get upto speed with how things work today, based on what Lappartient said! No matter, the point is UCI will have to investigate themselves in order to investigate Wiggins because they authorised the TUEs for intra-muscular use. Maybe in 20 years time other riders will say what happened at that time in Sky with Wiggins beyond his TUEs, but until then, if you want to assume some kind of Armstrong-like long-game investigation by Lappartient and CADF, he's simply cheap talking his own short-term politics, much like technical fraud. At this moment in time any investigation would have to be a legal matter based on WADA rules using evidence.
I agree...but the TUE system depends on a few parts...one of which is the good faith in the doctor applying for the TUE

whilst any investigation would be ostensibly about Wiggins the athlete, it would actually be about both Freeman and Zorzoli.

We know that Freeman is dodgy (lost laptop and non-appearance) and we know that other docs were concerned about a different RUE applied for Wiggins. And, well, we know about Zorzoli.....

Whether or not there would be enough to do for Wiggins would be down to the Freeman side of things...the UCI would have to taker Zorzoli on the chin
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS