The atheletes code is they generally don’t rat each other out. They’ll go as far as Chris Froome did and say ‘he has questions to answer’.
What is the evidence so far?
The committee looking into this is struggling to extract evidence because no-one including Brailsford, Team Sky, British Cycling appears to keep proper records, and although people involved seem to be able to remember every logistical detail they somehow can’t remember what the actual item was that needed to be personally couriered over…
Also British Cycling appear to have large stocks of Triamcinolene without any records of who it has been prescribed for and for what reason. Has every competitive cyclist now got asthma or some fucking allergy???
That’ll be no evidence then. Or very little at best.
More questions do need to be asked though.
There’s no smoking gun, no. But the circumstances and lack of co-operation is damning them in any case. This isn’t going to go away any time soon.
There are going to be a lot of people making money writing about it. All a bit meh so far.
As against the people who have made a lot of money and received honours from the (alleged) cheating in the first place?
Says the cyclit defending his sport regardless…
if that was a typo it is a belter, if not, well played Sir!
The auto correct wanted to make it cyclist
Can someone enumerate the actual evidence of performance enhancing doping by Wiggins and Sky?
Because it all seems a bit thin. Especially if you’re depending on Kimmage.
I merely found it an interesting article - nothing more.
So you think Kimmage has an agenda here then ?
The performance enhancing doping is the use of triamcinolone which is a widely abused steroid. However it is not illegal as it was covered by a TUE. Doesn’t make it right though, particularly the timing of its use.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s all fine.
Kimmage definitely has an agenda.
And some interesting insights. But the interview with him reads like ‘bomber found on the moon’.
Using words like ‘abused’ without a solid argument, and ‘steroid’ without qualification makes you look a bit bonkers. It’s not about ‘head in the sand’ it’s about your tin foil hat.
What matters is primarily the rules, no evidence of breach.
Then the health of the athletes, no evidence of acting against their interests.
And then the moral aspect of maximising performance within the rules, perhaps Sky may have been a bit close to the wind. But then they ask people to be professional cyclists, and it’s not at all obvious that that is a healthy lifestyle choice even dosed with pure muesli.
So far there is nothing but some bullshit. And from recent history the issues in cycling seem to be individual. Look at John Tiernan Locke, and how his performance decayed at Sky before he got into trouble for his activities prior.
It’s all fine then, no case to answer
Bit late maybe, but probably for the best.
Thereby admitting it was performance enhancing over and above being a treatment for allergies.
I still think Wiggins has questions to answer, as well as some honesty about the package, it would be good if he confirmed that his TUE was administered intra muscularly, and precisely why…
Of course it would be very embarrassing all round to have a knighted Olympic champion have to fess up in front of the select committee, so it won’t happen.
No doubt the apologists for Wiggins and Team Sky will continue to defend them.