I think it's one of their least persuasive pieces, to be honest. It says nothing damning or anything that hasn't been already said, unless I've missed something.
Froome and Wiggins TUEs
- Thread starter Joffey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
A much fuller explanation in the Guardian today.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues
I have to say, that all of that rings true with me. I have rhinitis from allergies and asthma. I do the sprays and the inhalers, I feel the tiredness and I suffer on bad days and I don't really mention it anymore as it just sounds tiresome to people.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues
I have to say, that all of that rings true with me. I have rhinitis from allergies and asthma. I do the sprays and the inhalers, I feel the tiredness and I suffer on bad days and I don't really mention it anymore as it just sounds tiresome to people.
The thing I still struggle with is what arises from this paragraph:
'Wiggins said he had asked what he was being administered, and he had been “fully aware of this drug and the taboo surrounding it all … the misuse and the abuse of this drug in the past”. He added: “It was for a very specific thing … to treat something that was historically a problem for me and could be quite a serious problem for me. I’d become a potential favourite for the Tour de France, or certainly to get on the podium. I’d returned to the form I was in in 2009 and the only thing that could really stop me from achieving that was if I struggled with allergies during the race. It happens.”'
If that's the case, shouldn't the response be "Sorry, Bradley, but I just don't think you're destined to be a Grand Tour winner. It's a shame, but some people just don't have the physiology for it." rather than giving him a banned performance enhancing drug (under whatever regulations or approvals)?
'Wiggins said he had asked what he was being administered, and he had been “fully aware of this drug and the taboo surrounding it all … the misuse and the abuse of this drug in the past”. He added: “It was for a very specific thing … to treat something that was historically a problem for me and could be quite a serious problem for me. I’d become a potential favourite for the Tour de France, or certainly to get on the podium. I’d returned to the form I was in in 2009 and the only thing that could really stop me from achieving that was if I struggled with allergies during the race. It happens.”'
If that's the case, shouldn't the response be "Sorry, Bradley, but I just don't think you're destined to be a Grand Tour winner. It's a shame, but some people just don't have the physiology for it." rather than giving him a banned performance enhancing drug (under whatever regulations or approvals)?
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
Crax old chap, we get that you need medication and that - but yours ain't similar circumstances as Brad's situation...
Well I didn't say I agreed with it. I don't think it should be available under a TUE. I'm just saying that finally, his explanation of his symptoms rings true, even if the explanation for the solution doesn't.
Dave Davenport
Guru
- Location
- Hampshire
Yep, me too.
swansonj
Guru
The latestGuardian interview cheers me up. To some extent.
I've always like Bradley (much more that say Froome) precisely because he is flawed, his flaws make him human, he isn't a perfect winning machine, he has ups and downs that stem from his personality. His detailed account is consistent with that and, if true, casts him a much better light - his mistake was not having second guessed the machine around him, stepped outside it and taken an overview, rather than consciously setting out to manipulate the rules himself.
Of course, this could all be artificial, a very clever and professionally crafted PR strategy. But I'm reminded of what the judge said in the Plebgate libel case about the copper being too thick to invent the story. Somehow I just can't see Bradley seeing through quite such an artificial message.
I've always like Bradley (much more that say Froome) precisely because he is flawed, his flaws make him human, he isn't a perfect winning machine, he has ups and downs that stem from his personality. His detailed account is consistent with that and, if true, casts him a much better light - his mistake was not having second guessed the machine around him, stepped outside it and taken an overview, rather than consciously setting out to manipulate the rules himself.
Of course, this could all be artificial, a very clever and professionally crafted PR strategy. But I'm reminded of what the judge said in the Plebgate libel case about the copper being too thick to invent the story. Somehow I just can't see Bradley seeing through quite such an artificial message.
Hacienda71
Mancunian in self imposed exile in leafy Cheshire
- Location
- Wilmslow, Cheshire
Mr Locke having his say on the BBC today whilst still denying his guilt as a doper. 
Strathlubnaig
Guru
- Location
- Alberta
all kicking off again... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...investigate-Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Team-Sky.html
Hont
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
I saw that. Shame the headline didn't read "Convicted doper questions Sky's TUE stance".Mr Locke having his say on the BBC today whilst still denying his guilt as a doper.
Hont
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
And if you've not seen it an interesting viewpoint from Dr Hutch in this week's comic...
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...s-288711?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...s-288711?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Diggs
Veteran
- Location
- Billericay, Essex
And a bizarre interview on BBC Radio 5 live about the whole Sky JTL situation, Tony Doyle goes completely off piste.......
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ticises-three-woman-panel-sexism-shane-sutton
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ticises-three-woman-panel-sexism-shane-sutton
Stonechat
Guru
- Location
- Staines, Middlesex
YEs JTL and the Russians seem to be leading the criticism - well they would , wouldn't they
oldroadman
Veteran
- Location
- Ubique
Just browsing all the sensationalist stuff in Daily Hate Mail and Times about a "raid" at BCHQ by UK Anti-Doping. I was passed a link to a press release by UKAD to say that some of their people had been for a pre-arranged meeting. Hardly a raid. then all the entirely speculative from the Mail that they "assumed" the premises were searched...what a load of fertiliser. But never let facts get in the way of a click bait story. So I took a look at current suspensions on the UKAD website. I found one possibly two cycling related cases. The rest were a couple of rowers, a few weightlifters, and almost everyone else from both codes of rugby. Perhaps the people in search of a story might investigate the amount of abuse in that sport? I fear not, like "mainstream" sports there is too much money and fan base to offend. They may lose readers. Despite the surprising growth in size of rugby players, some of which is probably down to lots of steak and gym work for full time players. I do hope so, but looking at the lists it seems that many are tempted by a short cut. Oddly, no top level cases are reported, so presumably it must be ultra clean in the pro leagues. Obviously.
But of course cycling is a "dirty" sport and always will be in the eyes of the media, however much the public clean up has been effective. Surely other sport bodies don't hide things away or try to reduce punishments, or let people be "injured", do they?
But of course cycling is a "dirty" sport and always will be in the eyes of the media, however much the public clean up has been effective. Surely other sport bodies don't hide things away or try to reduce punishments, or let people be "injured", do they?
HF2300
Insanity Prawn Boy
It hasn't got anything to do with rationality and it hasn't got anything to do with upsetting or not upsetting mainstream sports; I'm not even sure it's to do with cycling being seen as a dirty sport. Sky, Wiggins et al. are in the public eye at the moment thanks to Fancy Bears' activities and there's a lot of bandwagon jumping going on - plus maybe a bit of schadenfreude by Rothermere at another large media organisation being discomfited?
