All that would be great MC, but all that would be expensive, and end up going on to race entry fees. It would make triathlon the first sport to have such extensive testing of amateurs, and unfortunately it probably needs some high profile cases to emerge before that's going to happen. Even pro triathlon probably isn't high profile enough unless the Brownlees failed a test or they had another Kona winner DQ'd for doping.
Friend of mine is a pharmacist. She says lots of people are on that drug for asthma and she can't see a problem with it.
True, but it's also known to be a PED, which is why he needed a TUE. It's also quite a strong drug to take for asthma - the issue seems to be that Wiggins needed very strong asthma medication immediately before 3 of his biggest target races, but at no other time. All approved and above board, granted, but it's pushing the boundary of legality - if you can get a doctor to sign it off then it's OK, regardless of whether it was actually needed to treat the condition or not.
Wiggins has said he's had injections. I don't think I know of anyone who's never had an injection. Medical treatment is fine in my book - but not vitamin supplement injections that used to be common in cycling. No need for that.
If sky were dirty then there would be a lot more stuff coming out than one tue that was approved by their own governing body.
Wiggins also said previously that he'd never had injections while at Sky. Presumably he either forgot about the ones right before his biggest races to treat a condition that would have threatened his participation in the race, or maybe he didn't want to bring it up because he knew there would be awkward questions to answer.
Yes, medical treatment is fine, but only if there's a condition that needs treating and only if there are no non-PED medications available, in my view.
And yes, if sky were doing illegal stuff across the board then there'd be a lot more coming out. With Armstrong there was a steady stream of claims of cheating which were all ignored at the time because, as he so frequently said himself, he wasn't failing any tests. I don't think anyone would fall for that again - if similar claims were being made about Sky we'd have written them off long ago.
All very blurred, when does a medical condition cease to become a disability to an athlete and turn into an asset? Ask Maria Sharapova? or Sir Brad?
Somehow doubt if you'll ever get a straight answer.
In Sharapova's case she was taking something for a long time that wasn't banned, that apparently a lot of athletes were taking. She didn't see the warning that it was about to be banned and took it after the deadline. There was a half-hearted attempt to claim that she'd originally taken it for medical reasons, but she was really playing by the 'if it's not on the banned list it's fair game' rule the whole time. Then the rule changed, she got caught and was herself banned.
Brad's case is a bit greyer in that he took something on the banned list, but did so after a doctor said that he needed it for medical reasons (i.e. he got a TUE). If those medical reasons weren't true (or exaggerated) then that's the ethical line being crossed for me, but whether we like it or not, if he's got a note from the doctor he's within the rules. Maybe the rules need tightening, but it's hard to see how you'd write them to prevent athletes taking performance-enhancing substances while still allowing them to take things for genuine medical reasons.
Crazy thing is MC, these guys (and gals) presumably doped to get a qualifying spot, then continued right up to the Kona race. Now, amongst all the qualifiers only a very few are ever likely to be in with a shout of a podium place, so why keep doping after you've qualified? A place in the top 10 in age group, or a PB? Really?
I guess once you start it quickly becomes a habit with some people.
It devalues it for the majority (hopefully) who got there under their own steam. Although judging from the drafting packs at the sharp end of some races a few used someone else's steam along the way!