Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Wiggins hits back: "I’d have more rights if I’d murdered someone"

Former Team Sky rider responds angrily to House of Commons report - and says he has no idea what was in THAT Jiffy Bag

Sir Bradley Wiggins has hit back angrily at a report published yesterday that suggested he may have broken anti-doping rules, saying “I’d have more rights if I’d murdered someone.”

The Combatting Doping in Sport report, compiled by the House of Commons Digital, Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee after an 18-month inquiry, was highly critical of Wiggins and Team Sky, with whom he raced from 2010 to 2014.

Among allegations contained in the report was one from a former senior employee of Team Sky, speaking anonymously, who claimed that the corticosteroid triamcinolone was used by Wiggins and other members of the team at training camps not on medical grounds but to improve their performance.

One of the effects of the drug is that it enables the user to quickly shed weight without losing muscle power, thereby improving their power-to-weight ratio.

The committee also said that it had doubt, in the absence of reliable evidence, that the infamous Jiffy Bag delivered to former team doctor Richard Freeman at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné did not contain the legal decongestant Fluimucil, as team principal Sir Dave Brailsford had told MPs in December 2016, but triamcinolone.

The drug is banned during competition, so if it had been in the package, that would have constituted an anti-doping rule violation, and the committee’s verdict on Team Sky and Wiggins was that even if no rules had been broken, they had crossed an “ethical line.”

It’s an allegation that Wiggins strongly rejected in an interview with BBC Sport’s Dan Roan yesterday.

“Not at any time in my career did we cross the ethical line,” he insisted.

“I refute that 100 per cent. This is malicious. This is someone trying to smear me. I would love to know who it is, I think it would answer a lot of questions.

“These allegations, it’s the worst thing to be accused of,” he continued.

“It’s also the hardest thing to prove you haven’t done. We’re not dealing in a legal system. I’d have had more rights if I’d murdered someone.”

The 37-year-old has previously spoken of the impact of news stories casting doubt on whether he was riding clean on his family, including his children facing taunts from schoolmates, and returned to that theme yesterday.

He said: “I’m trying to be in retirement and do other things in my life and the effect it’s had, the widespread effect on the family, it’s horrific.

“I don’t know how I’m going to pick the pieces up with the kids and stuff, as well as try and salvage my reputation from this, I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone.”

The select committee, chaired by the MP Damien Collins, said in its report: “From the evidence presented to the committee it might appear that Bradley Wiggins may have been treated with triamcinolone on up to nine occasions, in and out of competition, during a four-year period. It would be hard to know what possible medical need could have required such a seemingly excessive use of this drug.”

However, Wiggins countered: “I am a rider for Team Sky, the biggest team in the world at that point.

“If you’ve got niggles, problems, a knee injury, common cold, you go to the doctor in the team.

 “We are hypochondriacs as athletes, especially coming to the height of the season, the biggest race of the year, whether it is the Olympics Games or the Tour de France.

“So it was completely under medical need and this whole thing has been a complete mess of innuendo and rumour and nothing has been substantiated.”

While the report is based on previously published evidence provided either in writing or in person to the committee, Wiggins said: “These allegations have never been put to me before until now.

“I’ve only found out today what I’m actually being accused of.

“I mean, the whole Jiffy Bag thing was just a shambles,” he added.

Roan asked him, “What was in the Jiffy Bag?”

“God knows,” Wiggins replied. “Your guess is as good as mine.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

63 comments

Avatar
Jimnm | 6 years ago
0 likes

When you watch Brad being interviewed, looking at him it looks to me that even his hair is lying ! 

Avatar
Rich_cb | 6 years ago
0 likes

I don't think Wiggins has an ethical case to answer here.

He had a medical condition.

There was a list of approved treatments for that condition.

He took one of the approved treatments.

Avatar
andyp | 6 years ago
0 likes

'Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? '

 

quagmire with unethical conduct? He's failed a drugs test. Sorry, he's had an 'adverse analytical finding'.

 

Avatar
Bez10 | 6 years ago
0 likes

The optimist in me wants to belive that this is a rather harsh smear campaign designed to discredit the good name of British Cycling, Team Sky and its exhalted riders, however the realist in me is slowly accepting that optimism is an outdated concept within elite cycling. What worries me is Froome and Wiggins both sound like Lance Armstrong nowadays citing smears and conspiracies galore. Rewind 10 years to some of his interviews and they all provide carbon copy soundbites in their collective defence. 

I feel we were all naive to think the Lance Amstrong expose would signify elite cycling's re-birth. The sad fact remains that super-human performance within endurance sports is clearly dependent on marginal gains and it seems most marginal gains remain either illegal, borderline illegal or in Skys case, unethical.

When the Bradley Wiggins story first broke last year, I remember Chris Froome's Stoic silence in relation to Sir Bradley and Sir David. I found that strange considering both men had played pivotal roles in Froome's development. I took Froome's silence to symbolise a 'clean athletes' stance on unethical behaviour within the team and a chance to distance himself from the furore surrounding team Sky.

Fast forward 12-months and now Froome is tripping over himself to support Brailsford, Sky and the team in general. Is that anything to do with Froomes own personal quagmire currently with unethical conduct? who knows. I find the volt face intriguing. 

No matter how much cycling tries to repair itself, its image is continually tarnished by individual transgressions of ethics. Has cycling really moved on from the EPO decade dominated by Basso, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, Hamilton and Armstrong? I would argue recent examples from Contador through to Wiggins and Froome still suggest cycling is struggling with its demons. There remains an edemic culture that appears to be systemic in it's determination to exploit 'marginal gains' through 'unethical grey areas'

Is this cheating or is it pushing the boundaries of ethics permitted by the governing body. I will let you decide. I know this weekend, i'll be out on my bike, fuelled by a bowl of porridge, a love of cycling and my own integrity and character. I would argue those essential ingredients are what elite cycling needs most at the moment and in the future.

 

 

Avatar
Crashboy replied to Bez10 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Bez10 wrote:

I know this weekend, i'll be out on my bike, fuelled by a bowl of porridge, a love of cycling and my own integrity and character.

 

As long as it's real porridge -  not a pot of ready made stuff; that really would require a TUE in my house.

 

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to Bez10 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Bez10 wrote:

Rewind 10 years to some of his interviews and they all provide carbon copy soundbites in their collective defence. 

 

Not really. But even if so, a denial is a denial it's whether you are telling the truth that is important. The news is yet to break of Sir Brad or Chris mocking a reporter about their dead child, I'll await that story!

 

Bez10 wrote:

I would argue recent examples from Contador through to Wiggins and Froome still suggest cycling is struggling with its demons.

 

So the media have convinced you that Brad and Chriss have done something wrong despite any evidence. Seems to be working!

Avatar
bottechia | 6 years ago
1 like

How very strange that the UCI  should now question the integrity of their own TUE process ? They should defend the fact that an approved TUE is not doping  - otherwise what's the point of the TUE system  .. or... they should open up their files of all riders competing on approved TUE'S for public scrutiny. This doesn't come close to Armstong, Puerto of Festina violations - so let's get this in proportion. The UCI make the rules - and wherever the line is drawn, let's not be so naive in thinking that all teams will not be riding right on that line. In the end Bradley and Sky have to be judged against the rules of the sport made by the UCI - and to date there is NO evidence those rules have been broken.

Hang in there Brad, Dave and SKY - the select committee have expressed an opinion only - you have every right to express the opposite opinion.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to bottechia | 6 years ago
0 likes
bottechia wrote:

How very strange that the UCI should now question the integrity of their own TUE process ? They should defend the fact that an approved TUE is not doping - otherwise what's the point of the TUE system

Except that it's not the same UCI. As each administration comes in it likes to denigrate what the previous administration has done and claim that it's going to do it much better.

In fact, in this case, the rules have been tightened up, and there are now a lot less TUEs issued than there were in the times that Wiggins was getting them, suggesting that the opportunities for abuse of the system are reduced.

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
2 likes

This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same "damning report" phrase which must be from the press release about this story.  I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x

Avatar
Kadinkski replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same "damning report" phrase which must be from the press release about this story.  I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x

Looks like a really interesting discussion - i’ll Listen in.  Thanks!

Your summation of the programme is weird and paranoid though.

 

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Kadinkski | 6 years ago
0 likes

Kadinkski wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same "damning report" phrase which must be from the press release about this story.  I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x

Looks like a really interesting discussion - i’ll Listen in.  Thanks!

Your summation of the programme is weird and paranoid though.

Since I haven't summed up the programme, I'm intrigued as to how my summation can be weird and paranoid?  All I did was point out that they were using the same phrase as everyone else "damning report" and apparently accepting guilt when there is no proof.    If you think that's weird and paranoid, maybe you're weird and paranoid.  Or work for the BBC.

Avatar
Kadinkski replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Kadinkski wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

This is being discussed tonight on BBC R4 Moral Maze, using the same "damning report" phrase which must be from the press release about this story.  I just wonder how moral it is to accept a report which has no evidence of rule breaking.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a way of contacting them to point out that they are assuming the guilt of someone who has not been proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tf70x

Looks like a really interesting discussion - i’ll Listen in.  Thanks!

Your summation of the programme is weird and paranoid though.

Since I haven't summed up the programme, I'm intrigued as to how my summation can be weird and paranoid?  All I did was point out that they were using the same phrase as everyone else "damning report" and apparently accepting guilt when there is no proof.    If you think that's weird and paranoid, maybe you're weird and paranoid.  Or work for the BBC.

its a really interesting discussion about ‘The Morality of Competition’. You should actually listen to it. You’re paranoid in saying that they are assuming the guilt of Wiggins, well I say paranoid, when in actual fact I mean you are literally 100% wrong. They have hardly even mentioned him. 

You need to calm down sweetheart.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Kadinkski | 6 years ago
0 likes

Kadinkski wrote:

Looks like a really interesting discussion - i’ll Listen in.  Thanks!

Your summation of the programme is weird and paranoid though.

Since I haven't summed up the programme, I'm intrigued as to how my summation can be weird and paranoid?  All I did was point out that they were using the same phrase as everyone else "damning report" and apparently accepting guilt when there is no proof.    If you think that's weird and paranoid, maybe you're weird and paranoid.  Or work for the BBC.

[/quote]

its a really interesting discussion about ‘The Morality of Competition’. You should actually listen to it. You’re paranoid in saying that they are assuming the guilt of Wiggins, well I say paranoid, when in actual fact I mean you are literally 100% wrong. They have hardly even mentioned him. 

You need to calm down sweetheart.

[/quote]

I did listen to it, and they did mention Sir B, but that isn't the point, which is that they used the phrase "damning report" to publicise the programme when the report contains no proof of rule breaking whatsoever, and by using that phrase, they assign guilt to Sir B.  Now that might seem paranoid to you and 100% wrong, but it is a fact.

Which bit of the BBC do you work for darling?

XXX

Avatar
Feckthehelmet | 6 years ago
0 likes

Well that'sounds the first British (australian/belgian ) chicken home to roost! When does the Kenyan one fly in?
Marginal gains? (Funking cheats!)

Avatar
davel replied to Feckthehelmet | 6 years ago
1 like
Feckthehelmet wrote:

Well that'sounds the first British (australian/belgian ) chicken home to roost! When does the Kenyan one fly in?
Marginal gains? (Funking cheats!)

Oooh look, a racist Irishman. How novel.

Avatar
JohnDc | 6 years ago
1 like

David Braislford had the nerve to give evidence and did well. He made the point that the relationship between Dr and Bradley is a confidential one and he would not know the details of every medical issue.  Bradley and Dr Freeman both decided not to give evidence at their opportunity to give an honest account. No good whingeing after the event when people decide on the evidence in which you have failed to give an account. Why did you both decide not to provide evidence. Shane Sutton did and did well and was fighting your corner. Go on TV and face up to it don't hide behind sound bites or your reputation will remain tarnished. Bradley I recall you slagging Lord Coe off for no good reason and he could not defend himself ? why ? . Now you know how it feels. Brailsford is a top man .. you have hidden.

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
2 likes

I'm no fan of Sir B, but this character assasination stinks to high heaven.  A bunch of politicians, not exactly the most respected occupation on earth, just below double glazing salesmen I understand, villifying someone with no substantive evidence, let alone damning evidence.  Basically they couldn't say that they'd wasted eighteen months doing almost nothing, so they have to invent, embellish and insinuate.  Just your typical politicians really.

Every one of that committee should apologise and resign.

How about if BC and Sir B write a report insinuating that the politicians on this committee were taking illegal drugs without any actual proof?  I wonder if that would make the front page of the tabloids and item one on BBC news?

Avatar
Must be Mad | 6 years ago
0 likes

Quote:

I don’t know if I believe him but wouldn’t testing have picked it up if it was a controlled substance only allowed under a TUE?

If I'm correct in my understanding of the timeline - the package was delivered in the evening, Brad would have already been through post race testing.

 

Avatar
choddo | 6 years ago
0 likes

If you listen to the full interview, he continues “it’s  not like someone came to give me a bag and I signed for it. I was doing my job riding and as it was probably delivered to the team” - something along those lines. And that he did have florithingy that day and that might have been what was in it. Shame on sky for not keeping proper records. Just makes them look guilty 

 

I don’t know if I believe him but wouldn’t testing have picked it up if it was a controlled substance only allowed under a TUE?

Avatar
Peter Scott | 6 years ago
2 likes

Seems to me there a three key questions. First does Bradley Wiggins have asthma? If he does then the rules allow him to take the drug. Secondly Dave Brailsford succeeds by attention to detail gaining small increments of improvement from a wide range of techniques. The physical condition of the riders is one such. If he can use drugs legally to improve that then it is legitimate. So the second key question is, 'Could he be tempted to step over the line?'. Considering his declared wish to be clean I suspect not. Thirdly the only thing that seems odd to me is that, considering how important being clean is, and what a good organiser DB is said to be, why were the crucial records of drug deliveries so poor? Incompetence? A setup by an envious rival?

Spirited people get annoyed by bullying questions and will say unwise things that we should not take too seriously. It is verifiable facts that matter.

Avatar
kingleo | 6 years ago
1 like

 Olympic and world champion over a period of about 15 years - not one positive drug test, he is 100% clean.

Avatar
BigBear63 | 6 years ago
3 likes

Presenting opinion as a judgement as the CMS committee of MPs have done is tantamount to a kangaroo court. They know full well the Media and indeed the General Public will view the reports conclusions as solid as a court verdict. Should it be a Star chamber? God help us all if such power is put back in the hands of politicians. They have a justifiable point to make but let us not forget they are not an unbiased, professional court.

In this case, the the CMS committee is decidedly less reliable than a civil court which judges on the balance of probability. In civil cases reputation of the witnesses has a great deal of persuasion when there is no clear evidence of wrong doing. Indeed, no one is suggesting Wiggins has done anything wrong . So on the balance of probability, gentlemen of the jury, did Mr Wiggins take a legally prescribed drug which he knew to have side effects which in some people may reduce weight and improve performance?

Should Wiggins, Brailsford & the rest of the Sky management have known what the side effects were? With hindsight, absolutely they should. Did they know, and are lying about it? That's anyone's guess. I try to remain even handed and place store in the past records and reputations of those involved. On that basis I am more than happy to give Wiggins & Brailsford the benefit of the doubt.

In conclusion, the CMSC should have simply outlined the facts and the possible conclusions that may be drawn from those facts. Their recommendations should have been targeted at the system not the people who run it, or who are governed by it. Maybe it wouldn't have garnered quite so much attention if the likes of Coe, Farah, Wiggins & Brailsford hadn't figured so prominently in the reports condemnations. I know who I choose to believe and who I wouldn't trust for a minute.

Avatar
Fish_n_Chips | 6 years ago
1 like

I hope he’s innocent like I did with Lance Armstrong... oh wait...

 

Hence why competitive cycling and British Cycling is going down the pan with a damaged image.

Avatar
Must be Mad | 6 years ago
0 likes

Quote:

Personally if we were to 'ignore' the fact that Sky banged on about their zero tolerance approach to cheating as the hyperbole it clearly is

Which cheating are we talking about here?

Avatar
Tony replied to Must be Mad | 6 years ago
1 like

Must be Mad wrote:

Quote:

Personally if we were to 'ignore' the fact that Sky banged on about their zero tolerance approach to cheating as the hyperbole it clearly is

Which cheating are we talking about here?

I think it was the team regularly eating pasta.  A legal but highly unethical attempt to gain a performance advantage within the rules.

Avatar
Must be Mad | 6 years ago
1 like

Quote:

Among allegations contained in the report was one from a former senior employee of Team Sky, speaking anonymously, who claimed that the corticosteroid triamcinolone was used by Wiggins and other members of the team at training camps not on medical grounds but to improve their performance.

Is this relevant?? Given that triamcinolone is perfectly permitted out of competition, no TUE required.

Quote:

One of the effects of the drug is that it enables the user to quickly shed weight without losing muscle power, thereby improving their power-to-weight ratio.

Is this true and verified?? I know everyone is a triamcinolone expert now - but as far as I know the weight loss was a side effect of triamcinolone due to it reducing muscle mass - although then this subject was kicked around two years ago I seem to remember that there was a lot of conjecture and competing theory’s and little in the way of consensus.

Avatar
Nixster | 6 years ago
8 likes

I'm no lover of Sky or its sponsors, nor do I think Wiggo is a saint however he does have a point.

The DCMS committee has no proof for its suspicions other than from an anonymous witness whose evidence has not been subject to the same sort of cross examination that Sutton, Brailsford etc were.  DCMS has extrapolated 3 known instances of taking a controlled substance backed by TUE to something larger with no substantiation other than a single untested witness.

There is evidence of incompetence in the area of medical record keeping and lax processes which have subsequently bitten Sky on the bum very firmly.  Whether Brailsford or others in the organisation ought to consider their futures is a debatable point but these are politicians who operate in the arena of public opinion = fact and Sky would do well to take account of that. 

Have Sky done nothing wrong?  It seems they have not, were a legal test to be applied.  Have they done everything completely right?  It seems they have not either, and can't prove as much.  The ususal way forward here in the political world is the rolling of the odd head, apologies all round, promise to do better in future then continue much as before but being a bit more careful.

Avatar
Ogi | 6 years ago
2 likes

Since I'm not a UK native, can somebody try and address my rant. Please correct me if wrong. The ordering goes something like this.

1. Russian Olympians get scrutinized/penalised for doping.

2. Russian hackers (something Bears) start hacking WADAs, UKADs etc. and start publishing TUEs of various different sportsment across the world. Let's not get into whether state was behind the hack or not.

3. Wiggins story lifts off from there.

4. The rest of Sky story - we all know how we got here.

Why is there so much Russophobia in this country? I can understand some of the history and empirial rivalries etc. But other than that?

Evidently, the hacking thing seems to be a "good thing" no? At least it was eye-opening to some people...

Disclaimer: I'm not Russian :).

Avatar
peted76 replied to Ogi | 6 years ago
1 like

Ogi wrote:

<snip>

Why is there so much Russophobia in this country? I can understand some of the history and empirial rivalries etc. But other than that?

Evidently, the hacking thing seems to be a "good thing" no? At least it was eye-opening to some people...

Disclaimer: I'm not Russian :).

No Russian'phobia anywhere as I can see. Just a manipulated and enforced 2 year media storm since the bears hack, over the British UCI World Tour team, Team Sky.  Followed by a very suspicious, anonymous leak of a AAF for salbutamol to national newspapers. 

Obviously we would all like to actually know who's breaking the rules, but it would appear we're equally happy with speculation and death by public opinion.

I mean those Frenchies throw piss over Froome anually, they've been doing it right for years, right.

As someone says above... where is Sir Mo Farrah in this media storm? He was given an injection of L-carnitine before the 2014 London Marathon which Dr Robin Chakraverty admitted was to 'help performance'.  Lets throw another british sports star under the bus. 

Frankly it all stinks, but hell 2014 was our year for sporting stuff (I still drink out of a 2014 Olympics mug), to me it looks highly likely that those in the know probably knew what they were doing and that they were doing so not in the spirit of sport but with the goal of winning using the very edge of the rule book. I would imagine that we'd find this level of 'gaming' to be widespread across our sports.

Has doping in sport changed since LA? - Yes, clearly people are doping 'within the rules' now.

 

 

Avatar
davel replied to Ogi | 6 years ago
6 likes

Ogi wrote:

Why is there so much Russophobia in this country? I can understand some of the history and empirial rivalries etc. But other than that?

Evidently, the hacking thing seems to be a "good thing" no? At least it was eye-opening to some people...

I guess if you believe the accusations of state-backed hacking, polonium poisoning in a public place(s?) and the downing of a plane-load of Dutch people, one might be surprised that there isn't more Russophobia.

Pages

Latest Comments