Andrewmc wrote:
every single article is going out of its way to make clear "there is no suggestion that he or the team broke any rules"
this is purely for libel reason
there is no question he can find an expert and a QC who would make hay with the first publication that called him on it
my problem with this situation is that both Wiggins and Brailsford have at every single step in the process stated repeatedly that they are clean, the implication being both in spirit and letter of the law. It turns out that Brad shows up one week before, the team asks if there is anything they can do, he says I've had some trouble breathing and they get one of the more powerful catabolic steroids signed off that no respiratory physician would ordinarily give someone with asthma and hayfever
Irrespective of whether it was the appropriate drug (and the view amongst my colleagues who are all physicians is it was not) the reality is that both the riders and management of team sky - and obviously by close association - british cycling - have been shown to be just as willing to push the boundaries of whats permitted as any of the individuals who they have spent so many years chastising
Brailsford and Wiggins are f**ked from a reputation point of view, the next thing we'll have is more and more members of the British Olympic Team - I believe its 100 or more who have notified the governing bodies that they've had TUE's that might be released and the system will be shown exactly for what it is, which is the boundary between clinical need and good clinical practice and doping is a very fuzzy line
IF - and this didn't happen - Wiggins had said he had asthma and hay fever and the physicians when submitting a TUE had also submitted the clinical evidence for the course of treatment (and the UK in that sense has a large body of work on clinical best practice in the NICE guidelines) they'd not be on such thin ice, but as it is, they found a physician who agreed to sign it off at essentially his request having been facilitated by the management team and now they're being shown for what they are
I have been as much a fan of BC and Sky as any other Brit but this could well result in the downfall of the team IF further evidence comes out that they effectively got a sanctioned doping program through the use of TUE's and sympathetic doctors.
I am as much a fan of Sky as I am of the Oregon project (check the ST threads and how much I was cheering for Farah in the 5000/10000 and Rupp in the marathon at Rio). The reality, is that I expect that all these orgs will maximize their performance using every legal means to them, morals be damned. I grew up sprinting in Canada when Ben Johnson was winning the bronze medal to Carl Lewis in the LA Olympics (1984), so let's just say, at this point, I just expect pros to do everything they can get away with, and in public they will act like choir boys. Nothing new if Sky are not choir boys. The British public, may be duped and now finding out that they are a slightly lesser version of the USPostal Blue train hitting Col de La Madeleine, but it's too much of the same to not not feel uneasy. Great athletes, great coaches, lots of money and every medical means
they can get away with. In the case of Postal they stuff they could get away was illegal. In the case of Sky, now that the box is tighter they can win playing by the rules to the letter, which in many cases, might cross our moral line, but they are playing the rules. That's why Vino just mocked at the entire world taking his gold medal at the London Olympics. He treated EPO and blood bags like pro triatheletes sitting at the edge of the draft zone. Take what you can until you get put in the sin bin, then come back and win. Only way is to make the system tighter. Wiggins will keep his victories, but I think he'll be less of an "unwanted" than say Linford Christie who had an illegal nandrolone drug bust (I'd still have loved to see how fast Linford could have run in the 1996 100m finals in Atlanta as I am under no illusion what others were on).