Is his legacy tarnished?

Yes. He shouldn't have gone anywhere near the jump

Garnerssoap wrote:Yes. He shouldn't have gone anywhere near the jump

What's the jump?

The best things come in small packages apparently...

evensteadiereddie wrote:The best things come in small packages apparently...

Those packages contained some serious **** I think.

If he was a Russian this wouldn't even be up for debate. Should be stripped of his medals sadly

Steve1956 wrote:Is his legacy tarnished?

Nah, Mr. Armstrong tarnished the sport and everyone now considers all pro cyclists to be drug cheats. They are not, but suspicion will always be around them. Chris Froome was even accused by the french of having a motor hidden in his bike 'cos he went up mountains too fast. He immediately offered his bike for testing . They couldn't say he was taking performance enhancers as he was already the most drug tested competitor in the race , being the race leader ( post Armstrong rule). Armstrong has left the sport in tatters and any cyclist seen with anything stronger than cod liver oil capsules will be quizzed by the press and public alike.

It's not the **** they contain it's whether Team Sky were using TUE's ('Therapeutic Use Exemptions' ) as possible (very minor) performance enhancers . Sky were so clean a team and Wiggins medical records are pristine ,but while this ain't no blood doping type affair, unless they come up with some 100% proof it was the product SIr Dave said it was then a slightly unpleasant smell just may never go away .

karatekid wrote:Nah, Mr. Armstrong tarnished the sport and everyone now considers all pro cyclists to be drug cheats. They are not, but suspicion will always be around them. Chris Froome was even accused by the french of having a motor hidden in his bike 'cos he went up mountains too fast. He immediately offered his bike for testing . They couldn't say he was taking performance enhancers as he was already the most drug tested competitor in the race , being the race leader ( post Armstrong rule). Armstrong has left the sport in tatters and any cyclist seen with anything stronger than cod liver oil capsules will be quizzed by the press and public alike.

Completely agree. People see the stories in the media and think everyone is a drug cheat because of the history of the sport. But what people don't realise is that in most instances it is just a clerical error and the 'drug' wouldn't even enhance performance.

I don't think he'll ever recover from advertising Skoda Cars.

If his asthma was bad enough that he needed a TUE just prior to a race then in theory he needed to rest and not race.

Its all very suspicious and will probably never be fully proven, but moving forward cycling needs to make a decision on TUE's and the timing of when they're used.

Sir Bradley Wiggins of Wigan,will always be the best..a true pie eater..

It's been well documented that both Froome and Wiggins have taken both prescription medication not banned and medication which is banned and requires a Theraputic use exemption (TUE) which they obtained. Both have taken the same asthma medication requiring a TUE.

Really TUEs are for extreme situations and they should not really be able to complete if asthma was so bad it required a banned drug. Less powerful asthma drugs are not banned and don't need a TUE so why were normal asthma medications not enough. There is no doubt in my mind both have abused prescription medication and the TUE system. Until this recent drug being sent in the post I thought they were probably guilty of breaching ethical standards but not braking the rules of the sport.

This latest drug sent in the post leaves a really bad taste. It was something that could be bought in any pharamacy in Europe for a few pounds yet sky flew someone over with a package for Wiggins. Why? Then they conviently don't have records of the persciption.

Froome went from an also ran finishing 78th in some obscure tour when he was already well into his 20s to Tour de France champion. Wiggins from struggling in his road career after leaving the Track to dominating. That is not normal progression. Team Sky talk about Marginal Gains and it seems those gains were alll obtained by absuising prescription medication and the TUE system and possibly now breaking the rules of the sport with whatever was in the missing package and what ever else they are doing. If something in sport looks too good to be true it probably involves some form of Cheating (see Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Billy Bonds et al).

Mo Farah is doing exactly the same as team Sky by the way.

All cheats in my book whether they have technically broken any rules or not.

Sturmey-Archer Campagnolo on my mind

I think in the last couple of seasons of somebodies career all sports should have a seperate league where competitors can pump whatever they want into their bodies and go for it.

It'd be great to see some sprinter whizzed up to his eyeballs running the 100m in 3 seconds and then the following interview would be amazing also.

Billy Bonds??? The 70's footballer??? What kind of **** was he into then???? He was just a beardy nerd who could clout a football and the opposition. (Wasn't he?)

I like Wiggins and I admire[d] what Sky have done.

This stinks badly though and damages the reputations.

- unfortunately the story will never really go away now.

What is a brilliant spectator sport, will sadly always be tarnished by drugs stories.

I used to love that bloke Pantani going up the mountains 20 years ago, in the days when Channel 4 did massive coverage of the Tour de France.
Then he died at 34.
Then you read all the stories.
Sad and disappointing.

People use whatever they can 'within the rules' to win. .Anything not on a banned list that improves performance will be fair game, and presumably people like the team sky doctor are tasked with finding loopholes. Bet the same happens in football.

Ethically, should people use any substance at all that impacts on performance? Where do you draw the line?

Dark Cloud wrote:Billy Bonds??? The 70's footballer??? What kind of **** was he into then???? He was just a beardy nerd who could clout a football and the opposition. (Wasn't he?)

LOL sorry meant the baseball player Barry Bonds!

Flat Stanley wrote:LOL sorry meant the baseball player Barry Bonds!

Phew! Relieved!! But not as relieved as Mrs Bonds who suddenly thought she'd been married to a secret drug cheat/junkie all these years!!!

What's even sadder about pantani is his drug of choice to 'escape' was cocaine. And in massive quantities. Which for a sport already putting massive strain on the heart is plain madness. I can't believe he managed to achieve what he did in the end. Really sad story, but there's some great books about him. Raw talent, if ever there was an example of for elite sport, is epitomised by pantani.

Indecisive wrote:People use whatever they can 'within the rules' to win. .Anything not on a banned list that improves performance will be fair game, and presumably people like the team sky doctor are tasked with finding loopholes. Bet the same happens in football.

Ethically, should people use any substance at all that impacts on performance? Where do you draw the line?

I'd not heard of TUEs before these recent reports. I was thrilled by Bradley Wiggins successes, especially Tour de France and Olympics Time Trials (I cheered him loudly as he sprinted along the roads near where I live to win gold).

If TUEs were required, the rules should also have required that the granting of TUE should be announced publically. I wonder how many athletes would ask for their use if this was the case?

Yet another example of not rushing to announce honours for sporting achievements.

Flat Stanley wrote:It's been well documented that both Froome and Wiggins have taken both prescription medication not banned and medication which is banned and requires a Theraputic use exemption (TUE) which they obtained. Both have taken the same asthma medication requiring a TUE.

Really TUEs are for extreme situations and they should not really be able to complete if asthma was so bad it required a banned drug. Less powerful asthma drugs are not banned and don't need a TUE so why were normal asthma medications not enough. There is no doubt in my mind both have abused prescription medication and the TUE system. Until this recent drug being sent in the post I thought they were probably guilty of breaching ethical standards but not braking the rules of the sport.

This latest drug sent in the post leaves a really bad taste. It was something that could be bought in any pharamacy in Europe for a few pounds yet sky flew someone over with a package for Wiggins. Why? Then they conviently don't have records of the persciption.

Froome went from an also ran finishing 78th in some obscure tour when he was already well into his 20s to Tour de France champion. Wiggins from struggling in his road career after leaving the Track to dominating. That is not normal progression. Team Sky talk about Marginal Gains and it seems those gains were alll obtained by absuising prescription medication and the TUE system and possibly now breaking the rules of the sport with whatever was in the missing package and what ever else they are doing. If something in sport looks too good to be true it probably involves some form of Cheating (see Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Billy Bonds et al).

Mo Farah is doing exactly the same as team Sky by the way.

All cheats in my book whether they have technically broken any rules or not.

Agree it stinks, particularly given how Sky have made themselves out to be whiter than white. However it's not true to say Froome took the same medication as Wiggins. Froome took a treatment to treat a chest infection which most athletes do not believe has any performance enhancing benefit. Wiggins took a treatment for asthma which is widely acknowledged to be rocket fuel - indeed it was one of the drugs widely abused during the Armstrong years. Also, despite apparently being a life-long athsmatic, the only times Wiggins asked for a TUE were before the three grand tours Sky had targeted for him to win.

The parcel fiasco just adds to the stench. Here is an organisation famed for its forensic attention to detail which suddenly has a lapse in its record keeping. Then the individual involved is too sick to attend the inquiry and claims his laptop has been nicked! It all stretches credulity a little too far.

However, while Wiggins has some serious questions to answer, I like to think Foome is clean, but then I used to think that about Armstrong!

From 78th. To Tour de France winner by taking an asthma medication - which flat stan implies - it must be some good ****. I'm amazed it's not abused in every sport by the ton.

SIR Bradley Wiggins..

How wiggins slated Armstrong as a cheat,pot kettle...I always found it strange that on winning the tdf he chose not to defend it.froome is clean my gut tells me.

Armstrong made me suspicious of everyone when he basically said you had to cheat just to be even.

Even if he said that just to make himself look better it still makes that small bit of doubt creep into my mind when the UK win almost every cycling medal at the Olympics. Hope they were all clean.

mrhungryone wrote:How wiggins slated Armstrong as a cheat,pot kettle...I always found it strange that on winning the tdf he chose not to defend it.froome is clean my gut tells me.

Not relevant in this debate. Sky chose Froome as their leader in 2013. Froome would have beaten Wiggins in 2012 but Sky put Wiggins, the poster boy of British cycling up as their leader and team orders dictated that he riders rode yo support him.

As alluded to above, even Sir M is implicated. I guess at the top level of sport "not cheating" just means always staying one step ahead of the rules.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/39213469" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

professsorpiehead wrote:Sturmey-Archer Campagnolo on my mind

Fab gear

Wasn't there a falling out at some point between froome and wiggins? Froome getting too clise to wiggins lead a tdf?

Bradley didnt go from 78th to winning TdF he had a previous 3rd place finish when he rode for Garmin.

He never finished 78th. Wiggins was always a way from being the best rider but he's exceptionally good at time trials. The TdF he won suited him with nothing too extreme but a few time trials to allow a gap to be built up. At the same time Sky were spending significantly more money and put together a very good team.

The TUEs do leave a bit of a sour taste but I think it's more of a problem with the sport as a whole, that allows these things, rather than specific to Wiggins.

To a very large the sport of cycling is based on physiology. What's your natural hermaticrit level (ability of red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the muscles); your VO2 max (lung capacity); your power to weigh ratio, etc. Being able to breath freely is also physiological and if you can't do it then, sorry, that's just unfortunate. TUE's should not be allowed in any circumstance. You either have the right make up for the cycling or you don't.

Once you allow banned substances under the umberella of TUE's then you poke a hornets nest as different people can react differently to drugs. It's not so simple as Wiggins makes out , in saying that he was just creating a level playing field. How does he truly know that in addition to curing his "Asthma" it wasn't also giving him a little power boost ?

And then there's the fact that this "Asthma" that has been such a major factor in his life was never important or big enough to be mentioned once in both of his autobiography books.

Sorry, Sky, but I've lost the faith.