Bassons implying Wiggins/Froome are dopers?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's like anything else, ten years ago smoking in pubs was legal, if Wggins et al have been legally enhancing their performance, the method they have used may not be legal in future when the UCI find out about it and ban it. That is clearly what he is saying, "Beyond that, I’ve never made a distinction between doping and doping behaviour that’s not forbidden but most people do make that distinction. They’ll go right to the line"
 
That's what it reads like to me...

"In the peloton, it’s still going pretty quickly [smiles knowingly]. You don’t need muscles to go fast, apparently. That’s what we saw this year."

The rest is interesting thoughtful stuff...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/christophe-bassons-where-the-war-on-drugs-is-going-wrong
I'm not sure he's all that thoughtful and I don't see how that quote from him chimes with his poster campaign, which says,

‘Sometimes it’s hard to get rid of a label’.
 

rich p

ridiculous old lush
Location
Brighton
It's like anything else, ten years ago smoking in pubs was legal, if Wggins et al have been legally enhancing their performance, the method they have used may not be legal in future when the UCI find out about it and ban it. That is clearly what he is saying, "Beyond that, I’ve never made a distinction between doping and doping behaviour that’s not forbidden but most people do make that distinction. They’ll go right to the line"
What method are you saying they may have used?
 
What method are you saying they may have used?

I aint, no idea wether they are or not. BUT that is what Bassons would appear to be implying no?

In all sports be it Formula 1 or tiddly winks, people/teams will spend a fortune to find an 'edge' over the competition, a loop hole in the rules no one else as found etc. Once the loop hole is discovered then it is only a matter of time before it is banned for future use. No doubt a few years ago most of the 'enhancers' that are now are classed as doping would have been legal in that they had not been discovered and legislated against.
 

BJH

Über Member
I am not actually sure exactly what the point is that he is making here. So far there is nothing to suggest that Wiggins should have any fingers pointed at him, he has always had a strong anti doping stance unlike most of the proven cheats.

Is this part of the French comments about the GB track team - your winning so you must be up to something.

I would prefer to see insider like him, who will have awareness of what types of PED's are likely to be out there ask specific questions of teams and individuals on whether they use them and exactly what products they do use.

Could all teams not be forced to state all products used by the team, on the basis that the use of anything not previously notified to the UCI would result in a ban if subsequently found during testing? It could possibly lift the lid on this potential use before it makes it on to the banned list ??
 
It's like anything else, ten years ago smoking in pubs was legal, if Wggins et al have been legally enhancing their performance, the method they have used may not be legal in future when the UCI find out about it and ban it. That is clearly what he is saying, "Beyond that, I’ve never made a distinction between doping and doping behaviour that’s not forbidden but most people do make that distinction. They’ll go right to the line"

See that statement you've quoted there, is something, like the rest of the interview, I can't quite work out. I'm torn between, really profound or a wild west facade and when you look behind it, there's nothing there. I dont really know what to make of it yet.
 

Flying_Monkey

Recyclist
Location
Odawa
I think what he is saying is that Sky et al are using training techniques (and probably throwing money at stuff) that constitute everything but actual doping, i.e. against the spirit of the sport rather than actually breaking the rules.
 
Top Bottom