Bradly Wiggins " Doping "

Brad ,

Doping? True or False?

How the hell do I know? Where's the evidence?

There is no accusation of doping, he would be banned if that were true. He is accused of unethical use of medication. Is that true?

Having watched my childhood hero Tommy Simpson die through doping and then being a fan of Lance Armstrong, (not now). I would very disappointed to find Bradley Wiggins had abused the use of medication but I think it may be true. I know a doctor who has told me the medication he used was like using morphine for a cold. The cyclists operated in extreme conditions so maybe extreme medication is required, maybe not.

"The spirit of the rules"

In professional sport there is no such thing.

In golf the rules are there to help the players whenever they can.

In football any touch from behind and the player goes down and the ref is powerless to refuse the foul.

In snooker Hurricane Higgins always had a doctors note so he could remove his tie.

In snooker Bill Werbineck drank gallons of lager on a doctors note.

In swimming breaststrokers take an extra butterfly kick into the turn because they know that underwater recordings are not admissable.

In cricket they are allowed runners if the batsman can't run.

In athletics coaches explore minimal doses of drugs within the rules.

In tennis Sharapova took meldonium for her heart condition along with 80% of players who all had similar conditions! (Before before the drug was banned!!)

In cycling sick riders are allowed TUE's.

What Wiggins did was within the rules.

Change the crap rules.

Just listened to an interview (or a snippet of it) on 5live and he answered each one in a straight fashion, no media trained answers. I don't know (or, if I'm honest care) enough to know if his answers held water but he didn't hold back.

And I don't think cricketers can have runners any more can they?

Having just seen his interview on the BBC, I don't think he's guilty of anything.

Having just seen his interview on the BBC, I don't think he's guilty of anything.

Really he is like the rest takes any advantage he can him and his coaches / team they are all at it win any way you can same in any sport involving money dont be so niave

"The spirit of the rules"

In professional sport there is no such thing.

 

In golf the rules are there to help the players whenever they can.

In football any touch from behind and the player goes down and the ref is powerless to refuse the foul.

In snooker Hurricane Higgins always had a doctors note so he could remove his tie.

In snooker Bill Werbineck drank gallons of lager on a doctors note.

In swimming breaststrokers take an extra butterfly kick into the turn because they know that underwater recordings are not admissable.

In cricket they are allowed runners if the batsman can't run.

In athletics coaches explore minimal doses of drugs within the rules.

In tennis Sharapova took meldonium for her heart condition along with 80% of players who all had similar conditions! (Before before the drug was banned!!)

In cycling sick riders are allowed TUE's.

 

What Wiggins did was within the rules.

 

Change the crap rules.

In Cricket, they are not allowed a runner if the batter can’t run.

Which puts the rest of your post into some doubt.

As with most doping stories you have to look well beyond the headlines to get an idea of whats going on.

Some very worrying things have taken place at Sky who said their policy was to be seen to whiter than white in this area.

Poor record keeping and laptops allegedly being stolen and Shane Sutton Sky chief coach Brailsfords right hand man and friend of Wiggins admission that the use of corticosteroids at Sky is unethical, has to raise questions.

I like Wiggins and want to believe he is innocent but the evidence appears to point that he is at least guilty of crossing an ethical line.

Halibut,

I do hope he's not guilty of any infringement.It appears to me that there's a kind of gleefulness in the reporting. Like ,"got ya, we knew you couldn't be for real ". I

hope he fights back.

In Cricket, they are not allowed a runner if the batter can’t run.

 

Which puts the rest of your post into some doubt.

Original quote update to read:-

"In cricket they were allowed runners if the batsman can't run. Till they changed the rules."

I hope it removes some of your doubts but I'm not holding my breath.

Thankyou.

A drug should be banned, or not banned (for all participants). Should be non of this, only if you have medical condition X, can you use drug Y nonsense.

You can't operate on a spirit of the game basis; you need well defined rules with sharp clear quantifiable boundaries. Players can they do whatever they like to win, so long as it doesn't breach those rules. If it turns out players start doing stuff we don't like, then you need to address that with a change of the rules.