Bradley Wiggins hints at 'scary' new twist in 'Jiffy bag' case
Bradley Wiggins says “sinister” new information has come to his attention regarding the investigation into the ‘jiffy bag’ delivered to Team Sky at the 2011 Criterium du Dauphiné, adding that he would “love it all to come out” and alleging that certain people are “bricking it at the moment”.
Speaking to ITV4 while acting as a pundit during yesterday’s 14th stage of the Tour de France, Wiggins was asked about the year-long investigation into a medical package flown out to France seven years ago.
UK Anti-Doping was ultimately unable to establish the contents of the package, with Team Sky criticised for its lack of medical record-keeping.
After closing its investigation last autumn UKAD admitted it had been acting on a tip-off that the bag contained triamcinolone, a corticosteroid which is forbidden in competition without a Therapeutic Use Exemption.
Asked whether, with hindsight, Team Sky could have handled the TUEs and 'jiffy-bag' case better, Wiggins said: “Probably yeah, in terms of record-keeping etc. But there are things that have come to light with this whole thing that we’ve found out since that are quite scary actually and it’s very sinister.”
As part of the Fancy Bears hack into athletes’ medical records in 2016, Wiggins was found to have had three TUEs for triamcinolone, to treat pollern allergies. A report by MPs earlier this year accused Team Sky of having “crossed an ethical line” with its use of the drug.
“There are a few people bricking it at the moment, I know that for sure. I hope it comes out of its own accord but it is in certain people’s interest for it not to come out and get buried. We’ll see.”
On the parliamentary select committee which produced the report, Wiggins added: “They did not ask me to speak, I wish they had. We asked if I could see [committee chairman] Damian Collins, but he didn't come back to us.
"They asked me five questions at the 11th hour on the Friday before the report came out on the Monday. I answered those five questions, none of which were about things in the report.
"The report was fabricated stuff and it seems that they used parliamentary privilege to get it through legally. "If I'd murdered someone and was on trial, all that unsubstantiated evidence couldn't be used - it would be lack of evidence, thrown out.
"But you use parliamentary privilege and you can produce a report, try and ruin someone and there you go."