I was being sarcastic.... I admitted I was wrong in relation to the post I replied to, I thought the sarcasm was implied! I thought that was very obvious, Jeez I even admitted I was wrong! We can ask Olm but I think someone admitting their wrong is a forum first.... My view as I put in that post is that in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Make of that what you will.
As I said I am unsure and I could make a reason up if you wish? I don't want to respond if I don't know! If you would like speculation I imagine it is due to a huge focus on it in recent years and linked to the rise in society in general. That is speculation based on myself only being diagnosed with it 18 months ago despite playing high level sport for 7 years now.
Fair enough, it got lost in there. I agree with you. He hasn't been found guily. Some of us are using the weight of evidence, even though it is inconclusive, and the very obvious hiding of truths, as a basis to form an opinion that they are hiding something. Now what could that be???
Admittedly horrifically worded by myself..... No I fully appreciate that but we clearly come at this from two very different angles. I like black and white conclusive evidence and hard facts. You look at it from the weight of probabilities, and looking at this from analytical viewpoint. Which method is right? Who knows. I work in a job that requires me to look at the black and white, I can't use conjecture hence my views.
So the reason for you declaring it is your area of knowledge is that you have been diagnosed with it? 30 years ago this year I was talking on a Friday night to the 14 year old daughter of a girl I knew. She was excited as she had her first date on the Saturday night and was dancing in a show on the Sunday night. She had been asthmatic all her life. She was a big favourite of my sister in law whose dancing school was putting in the show because of the effort she put in even when struggling. Two hours later she was dead. That sent her mother into a downward spiral of drink and drugs which ended with her murder. So forgive me for any lack of sympathy or empathy for athletes claiming to be asthmatic so they can take medications which can give them a slight advantage.
Not at all the reason I claim that to be my area of knowledge. The bit about my diagnosis relates to the part about why it might have increased recently. The bit I said I knew nothing about? That is a tragic story and I am not wishing you or anyone to give sympathy to any athletes. If you can find a post where I say that please quote me and I will change it.
Not saying you did, just saying why I don't have sympathy for athletes claiming they have when it is merely to be able to take certain medications to give them an advantage. Two years after this poor girl passed away my son, then aged 9, had a bad asthmatic attack. Fortunately we had seen the signs and got treatment quickly. He hasn't had any attacks since leaving school but was left lacking in long term stamina in sports which was a shame as hecwas good at them. I was diagnosed asthmatic on a lung function test at work in my 40s. I wouldn't have been diagnosed years ago. Still classified as asthmatic but after somd years they decided my breathlssness, which by then was affecting my life, was down to COPD and that my problems were caused not by not getting air in but only exhaling 30% due to damaged lungs. This neant that any exertion meant taking in more air which you couldn't get out and you were left unable to breath, feeling like you were drowning, (it was terrifying and ended up with over 20 hospital admissions in 5 years at one stage),and having to indulge in a long period of short breath in and long breath out to stabilise things. The reason for saying all that is I saw various specialists. One drug dismissed by them as despite you only having it once a year the effects and side effects were not considered worth it unless things got down to a last resort. That drug was taken 9 times in 2 years by Wiggins.
Anyway Regardless of where you stand on the ‘it is/isn’t cheating if you push the drug usage right to the limit’ debate Does anyone seriously think that any of the riders in the TDF won’t be taking some time of supplements, within the rules, to help them do as well as they can? Because I don’t
I can't be bothered but it would be interesting to look back and see the comments regarding accusations against Cliff Richard, Leon Brittan and various politicians. Some which continued even after there were no charges levelled against them in the end let alone proven.
Ah ok Yes I agree then BTW I wasn’t upset anything was personal...I was just determining whether to argue or not!
I just read an interview by David Walsh about Armstrong, and this was said. "Because we have to know if the guy who won the Tour de France seven times is a genuine champion or not. Because in my view, if he doped to win the Tour de France, which I believe he did, he’s not a genuine champion. And other people will say, "Oh well, most of the other guys who rode those Tours were doping, so therefore he was the best." Well, I don’t subscribe to that view. My view is that there were plenty of people who rode those Tours clean who were absolutely screwed by the system, and if we don’t stand up for those people we shouldn’t be in the jobs we’re in."
If one year the TDF finishing line was within the boundaries of the KCOM, and the winner was found to have had 'assistance' to win the TDF, would they get a 3 year banning order from the KCOM?
