Not quite, Kemps - the 'doctors' are always looking for new drugs, for which there will be no detection.
Yes but I mean they're not only working for Wiggins, they'll be providing any team that are willing to pay.
So, there seems to be a POV, from some, that this cheating isn't cheating, because it cleverly avoids the technical breaking of a rule. It takes a very well intentioned directive and abuses it, because it can. So that's fine then... ...perhaps it should be filed, on that shelf over there, next to messing around with the name of a football club, because the rule and directive seem to allow it. I mean, why get all riled up, there's been no rule broken?
Funny that some of you are saying technically a rule wasn’t broken so punishment would be hard That’s the point! It’s hard as no rule was broken! As for TUE being only for medical treatment... look at Froome being done for too much inhaler. You haven’t grasped that a TUE doesn’t mean you can go unlimited. There are still limits and lines with TUEs yet the same armchair know it alls are still spouting how they have been used beyond medical need. If you don’t understand the argument stop stating things as true. Sky pushed the TUE use as far as they could within the rules. As any other coach and team would. This isn’t a debate it’s people making allegations with unsound reasoning or just plain wrong statements. If Froome has a TUE for his inhaler how has he breached limits in his system!? That just shot down most of the above logic.
'Blood-doping' is illegal in sport, even though there is no drug involved. An alternative is to utilise high altitude training, as do the Kenyans and Ethiopians. And Chris Froome, who is Kenyan (and who enters very few races in the cycling calendar - thus possibly saving the effects of his winter training for his targets).
Shock horror, ready the front page, athlete has used drugs. And I am supposed to throw my arms in the air in disgust and join in the condemnation. Within the rules, or FloJo like, a running chemical plant, the only naivety is to assume that someone is not going to try to find an edge somehow.
How about your comment So, there seems to be a POV, from some, that this cheating isn't cheating, because it cleverly avoids the technical breaking of a rule You say “this cheating” using the same stupid language as the others, and then define how it isn’t cheating. Even the report doesn’t say anyone cheated. So it’s a completely wrong and irresponsible statement. I didn’t even have to look hard for that one and there are many more!
Just googled triamcinolone. Used for chronic, severe, or difficult to control asthma. An uplifting tale for those who suffer chronic asthma, or copd. Remember the days you couldn't even lift your bike out of the shed. Get some of this down ya lad, next up the tour de France.
yes there is a difference. gamesmanship doesn't involve breaking the rules I've no inside knowledge on the recording activities of team Sky I don't know enough about TUEs to have an informed view, but my gut feeling is that TUEs should remain, but that some medication should be not allowed even when a TUE is in place, if that is possible
They will use whatever they can to play to the limit of the rules. British riders are the target right now but they could look at other favourites, and not just those who won either. And I think it's the same in any professional sport. Football has so much money in it, players have their own personal trainers, I expect players do what they can within rules to be better. And drug testing is more comprehensive in some sports (like cycling) than others. Because of the extreme nature of some cycling events even more avenues may be explored and risks taken.
I’ve just had my ACL reconstruction and had some of that Fentalyn stuff before being put under. Interesting. Give it a month and I’ll be like the vicar from Corrie.
My comment was an observation of other comments on this board. My language isn’t stupid, it simply, and accurately describes some of the comment on this board and elsewhere - far more accurately than yours does mine. It has been fairly and sensibly said that the abuse of the TUE rule was real, it was calculated to have meaningful impact at key strategic training points and that the abuse was covered up by the deliberate omission of records - records that would normally, routinely be kept. I think it was also covered up by a contrived set of statements by those involved - people we should expect better from. The language used on here, and elsewhere, is that of the general public, expert commentators and politicians who don’t need the semantics of a legal argument to tell them what is right and wrong. You don’t need to look hard because no-one, except Team Sky (and other drug abusers) are trying to cover-up their true thoughts and dislike for this taint on sport. Do you think cheating was involved?
The point is a rule may have been broken but its very hard to prove. Using a TUE for performance enhancement is against the rules, fact, even if that's within the stated limits, hence why there is a controversy here despite him never testing over the limit.
I give up. Bending and stretching a rule isn’t breaking it. Cheating is breaking rules. I don’t subscribe to an anonymous report with mystery sources (that doesn’t even suggest cheating). I don’t doubt edges were gained where they could be. Golf has seen equipment banned after use. Bikes have been banned after use. Swim costumes have been outlawed. Doesn’t make anyone a cheater. Rules are rules. This report is thowring mud. I’ve had enough as I think my point is clear and not peppered with “I think” and “I suspect” and “I’ve read” so it’s true rubbish.
No your opinion is along the lines of tongue stuck up Allams arse type comments so it's even less valid
