Mystery of the Jiffy bag will continue to dog Team Sky

Tom Cary examines the fallout of Ukad’s investigation and what it means for those involved

Is this the end of it?

Most likely, in terms of UK AntiDoping’s involvement – although, in its statement yesterday, it was careful to stress it “may revisit matters if new and material information were to come to light”. But definitely not in terms of the wider impact. As Damian Collins, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee says, this was a draw that pleases no one. The way Team Sky handled the investigation, certainly initially; the lack of medical record-keeping; the unavailability of key witnesses. All have left an impression of obfuscation and ineptitude, with those who were suspicious before certainly not going to be convinced because Ukad was unable to charge anyone. It is likely Sir Bradley Wiggins, Sir Dave Brailsford, Shane Sutton, Richard Freeman and the rest will have that cloud hanging over them. There is also the matter of Ukad passing on some of its material to the General Medical Council, which may now look into the failure to keep proper medical records.

What was in the Jiffy bag?

It seems crazy that Ukad knows who ordered the medicine, who packed it, who flew it out to Geneva and by what airline, and whether they had the Jiffy bag in their hand baggage or in their hold luggage. But not what was actually in the bag. The lack of medical records, and the unfortunate fact that Dr Freeman had his laptop stolen while on holiday in Greece apparently means there is no way to substantiate what was administered to Wiggins.

Will Wiggins sue?

Wiggins said in March that his hands were tied by the Ukad investigation but when he had his say it was “going to shock a few people”. After Ukad’s announcement that he was not going to be charged, it did not take him long to comment. Wiggins not only said he was disappointed by the way Ukad had conducted the investigation, he seemingly began the process of trying to flush out the whistleblower. “Who was the source?” he asked. “What exactly did that person say and to whom? Why did Ukad deem it appropriate to treat it as a credible allegation? Surely it is now in the public interest to reveal the source?” Wiggins is understood to be considering his next move – possibly legal – but he clearly feels someone with an ulterior motive briefed against him. British Cycling appear to have accepted the fact they made errors, with Julie Harrington, the chief executive, saying it did not meet the standards expected and stressing that it had overhauled its processes in the interim.

What does it mean for Ukad?

To put it bluntly, this was Ukad’s biggest test so far – a high-profile investigation involving two knights of the realm and household names left, right and centre – and it flunked it. With Parliament demanding answers, there was unprecedented interest in this case, but it was ultimately unable to establish the contents of a Jiffy bag. Nicole Sapstead, the chief executive, should not shoulder too

This was Ukad’s biggest test so far, involving two knights of the realm – and it flunked

much of the blame. The truth is, Ukad is not equipped to carry out investigations. Working with an annual budget which is a fraction of Team Sky’s, it is expected to police all of British sport. It has no legal authority to compel anyone to speak. Although it works with other services and departments, it relies on cooperation. Collins told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that this case proved why it was unfit for purpose and suggested he favoured a move to criminalise doping. Collins’s committee is preparing a report on Doping in Sport, due to be released in the next few weeks, and you can be sure that Ukad’s powers will be a hot topic of debate.

What now?

The BBC is to broadcast a documentary on Sunday night, Britain’s Cycling Superheroes: The Price of Success? Brailsford and Sutton are among those who have given interviews and it remains to be seen whether they will progress things further.