BBC Sports Personality Of The Year

[Jon Crofts]

I was delighted that Froome wasn't implicated in the TUE leaks scandal (unlike Sir Wiggo). He'll go on and win 3 or 4 more TdFs and can have another crack at the trophy later.

Froome isn't as squeaky clean as he's making out, it's a big mess and the man at the centre of it is now chief medical officer at British Cycling.
May 2014 TUE for steroids to treat chest infection - a week later wins Tour de Romandie
June 2014 TUE for inhaler use at Criterium du Dauphine
TUE for prednisolone (steroid) ongoing use for chest complaint

[Risso]

What a horrible, dirty sport cycling is, and Wiggins is clearly as bad as everybody else.  For shame.

[Nev]

I always feel that it is dangerous game handing out awards to people at a young age.

There are years to come where they may not turn out as virtuous or clean as first thought, and Wiggins may turn out to be the first of many.

[Jon Crofts]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

[LeeS]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

They could solve the crisis immediately. Just say that TUEs must be declared, publicly at the time they are prescribed. The list of things that are banned is very long and will include medication that is fairly mainstream when taken for an actual illness. As an example, insulin is a banned substance but we wouldn't deny a diabetic the chance to compete. I accept that some athletes may prefer to keep their medical history a secret but there is no reason Wiggo couldn't have told the world about his asthma and hay fever.

Transparency is the only way.

[Risso]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

You're right of course, but I find it a bit odd that there are so many cyclists with health problems, and the medication for those illnesses just happen to be performance enhancing in most cases.

[paul_e]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

They could solve the crisis immediately. Just say that TUEs must be declared, publicly at the time they are prescribed. The list of things that are banned is very long and will include medication that is fairly mainstream when taken for an actual illness. As an example, insulin is a banned substance but we wouldn't deny a diabetic the chance to compete. I accept that some athletes may prefer to keep their medical history a secret but there is no reason Wiggo couldn't have told the world about his asthma and hay fever.

Transparency is the only way.

The thing is he has been open about his asthma and hayfever, what he hasn'ty publicly declared is the exact treatments he's been given for them.  I don't know if doing that would make any difference.  On that basis given that everything is within the rules and the drugs have all been approved perfectly in line with the rules I don't have a problem with it.

[ACVilla]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

They could solve the crisis immediately. Just say that TUEs must be declared, publicly at the time they are prescribed. The list of things that are banned is very long and will include medication that is fairly mainstream when taken for an actual illness. As an example, insulin is a banned substance but we wouldn't deny a diabetic the chance to compete. I accept that some athletes may prefer to keep their medical history a secret but there is no reason Wiggo couldn't have told the world about his asthma and hay fever.

Transparency is the only way.

The thing is he has been open about his asthma and hayfever, what he hasn'ty publicly declared is the exact treatments he's been given for them.  I don't know if doing that would make any difference.  On that basis given that everything is within the rules and the drugs have all been approved perfectly in line with the rules I don't have a problem with it.

I have a massive problem with it and feel hugely let down by Team Sky and Wiggins.

He didn't mention anything about it in his autobiography, in fact quite the opposite, he was his fittest ever when he won the tour before the TDF that he won apparently, I don't think he even mentions his "long standing asthma problem" in his autobiography?

And the timings of him taking them totally and utterly stink.

In my eyes he cheated without actually breaking the rules and to cop out of it with an easy interview with Andrew Marr rather than a knowledgeable cycling journalist just compounds everything.

This comes from a huge Wiggins fan. I've have only really read snippets so I would love to be called out on all of this.

[LeeS]

But they've all done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, all their TUEs are perfectly legal.
What it does show is the complete lack of control the UCI has and what a crock of shit Team Sky's sporting ethos actually is.

They could solve the crisis immediately. Just say that TUEs must be declared, publicly at the time they are prescribed. The list of things that are banned is very long and will include medication that is fairly mainstream when taken for an actual illness. As an example, insulin is a banned substance but we wouldn't deny a diabetic the chance to compete. I accept that some athletes may prefer to keep their medical history a secret but there is no reason Wiggo couldn't have told the world about his asthma and hay fever.

Transparency is the only way.

The thing is he has been open about his asthma and hayfever, what he hasn'ty publicly declared is the exact treatments he's been given for them.  I don't know if doing that would make any difference.  On that basis given that everything is within the rules and the drugs have all been approved perfectly in line with the rules I don't have a problem with it.

I have a massive problem with it and feel hugely let down by Team Sky and Wiggins.

He didn't mention anything about it in his autobiography, in fact quite the opposite, he was his fittest ever when he won the tour before the TDF that he won apparently, I don't think he even mentions his "long standing asthma problem" in his autobiography?

And the timings of him taking them totally and utterly stink.

In my eyes he cheated without actually breaking the rules and to cop out of it with an easy interview with Andrew Marr rather than a knowledgeable cycling journalist just compounds everything.

This comes from a huge Wiggins fan. I've have only really read snippets so I would love to be called out on all of this.

This is how I feel too. He is forever tainted. Sky's holier than though act has come home to roost too.

[aj2k77]

The only thing I find unbelievable is that there were still people who believed Froome/Wiggins et al were clean to begin with.

[LeeS]

The only thing I find unbelievable is that there were still people who believed Froome/Wiggins et al were clean to begin with.

I just don't see it in Froome. You can tell by the way he speaks and conducts himself that he is a straight up guy and a pleasant chap. You dont get that impression from Wiggo.

[Jon Crofts]

The only thing I find unbelievable is that there were still people who believed Froome/Wiggins et al were clean to begin with.

I just don't see it in Froome. You can tell by the way he speaks and conducts himself that he is a straight up guy and a pleasant chap. You dont get that impression from Wiggo.

I'm afraid I still have doubts about Froome, like I said earlier, he's not as squeaky clean as he likes to make out, he's used TUEs to his benefit in the past.
In 2011 he was on the verge of having his contract cancelled and from out of nowhere came second in the Vuelta.  Afterwards claiming he'd suffered from Bilharzia as a child in Africa and had got his medication under control?

In 2014 his power data on 2 climbs in the TdF were declared as 'mutant'.  Funny how he now never takes his eyes off his SRM power meter on his stem when hitting the mountains, maybe so he doesn't raise more suspicion?  His performance at GSK's Human Performance Lab proves nothing other than his ability to hit the numbers thought to be impossible 7.5 Watts per Kg is off the chart superhuman.
 
I'm a suspicious bastard me, I'd like to think him & Wiggins are clean because cycling has had it's fill of Lance & Millar & Hincapie & Landis & the like.

[LeeS]

The only thing I find unbelievable is that there were still people who believed Froome/Wiggins et al were clean to begin with.

I just don't see it in Froome. You can tell by the way he speaks and conducts himself that he is a straight up guy and a pleasant chap. You dont get that impression from Wiggo.

I'm afraid I still have doubts about Froome, like I said earlier, he's not as squeaky clean as he likes to make out, he's used TUEs to his benefit in the past.
In 2011 he was on the verge of having his contract cancelled and from out of nowhere came second in the Vuelta.  Afterwards claiming he'd suffered from Bilharzia as a child in Africa and had got his medication under control?

In 2014 his power data on 2 climbs in the TdF were declared as 'mutant'.  Funny how he now never takes his eyes off his SRM power meter on his stem when hitting the mountains, maybe so he doesn't raise more suspicion?  His performance at GSK's Human Performance Lab proves nothing other than his ability to hit the numbers thought to be impossible 7.5 Watts per Kg is off the chart superhuman.
 
I'm a suspicious bastard me, I'd like to think him & Wiggins are clean because cycling has had it's fill of Lance & Millar & Hincapie & Landis & the like.

What do you think of the tests done back in 2007 when his power output numbers were comparable? They suggest he didn't come from nowhere. He was always capable of those performances. He has also been in possession of a biological passport since 2009 which shows nothing at all out of the ordinary happened in 2011. The term "mutant" isn't one used by mainstream observers either. He is just a very, very fit man with all the attributes needed to be a top cyclist. And if he really is mutant then why doesn't he win everything? Quintana beat him comfortably in the Vuelta. He must be a mutant too.

[Jon Crofts]

The only thing I find unbelievable is that there were still people who believed Froome/Wiggins et al were clean to begin with.

I just don't see it in Froome. You can tell by the way he speaks and conducts himself that he is a straight up guy and a pleasant chap. You dont get that impression from Wiggo.

I'm afraid I still have doubts about Froome, like I said earlier, he's not as squeaky clean as he likes to make out, he's used TUEs to his benefit in the past.
In 2011 he was on the verge of having his contract cancelled and from out of nowhere came second in the Vuelta.  Afterwards claiming he'd suffered from Bilharzia as a child in Africa and had got his medication under control?

In 2014 his power data on 2 climbs in the TdF were declared as 'mutant'.  Funny how he now never takes his eyes off his SRM power meter on his stem when hitting the mountains, maybe so he doesn't raise more suspicion?  His performance at GSK's Human Performance Lab proves nothing other than his ability to hit the numbers thought to be impossible 7.5 Watts per Kg is off the chart superhuman.
 
I'm a suspicious bastard me, I'd like to think him & Wiggins are clean because cycling has had it's fill of Lance & Millar & Hincapie & Landis & the like.

What do you think of the tests done back in 2007 when his power output numbers were comparable? They suggest he didn't come from nowhere. He was always capable of those performances. He has also been in possession of a biological passport since 2009 which shows nothing at all out of the ordinary happened in 2011. The term "mutant" isn't one used by mainstream observers either. He is just a very, very fit man with all the attributes needed to be a top cyclist. And if he really is mutant then why doesn't he win everything? Quintana beat him comfortably in the Vuelta. He must be a mutant too.

They're one off tests and not really statistically valid unless you do several across a season.
The performance improvement came between these 2 snapshots (2007 & 2015) and there's the hole that Froome filled with Bilharzia, also the biological data during this period, where is it?  This would square the circle somewhat and let's not forget that in 2011 Froome was being hammered round that prestige event the Tour Of Poland.
Half disclosures all the way from 2007 to date.
He wasn't riding for Team Sky in 2007 and those numbers in 2007 make him a pretty average mid peloton rider.  Joins Sky and fuck me look at him go.

That said, good on Froome for releasing the data, more should do the same.

[cdbearsfan]

Murray one win away from being Wimbledon Champion, Olympic Champion and Britain's first ever singles World number one.

He'll take some beating for this award if he does it.