Rant

Wiggins on Marr on TUEs

This morning Sir Bradley Wiggins appeared on The Andrew Marr Show to discuss the leaked TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) documents leaked by the hacking group Fancy Bears.

Wiggins has come under increasing pressure over recent days with cycling fans and the media accusing him of legally doping before 3 Grand Tours and in particular before his 2012 Tour de France victory.

So, what do we actually know?

  • It is common knowledge that Wiggins suffers from asthma and a pollen allergy
  • Wiggins has had 6 TUEs.  3 for Salbutamol, Formoterol and Budesonide administered by inhaler from and 3 for Triamcinolone Acetonide administered by intramuscular injection
  • Salbutamol, Formoterol and Budesonide are asthma inhaler drugs
  • Triamcinolone Acetonide is a strong treatment for asthma and allergies
  • Triamcinolone Acetonide has performance enhancing qualities, hence the need for a TUE
  • The TUEs were not specifically requested by Wiggins, or did he ask for those specific drugs.  A specialist saw him, diagnosed him and then applied for the TUE.
  • The TUEs were approved by the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) and WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency)
  • Wiggins never mentioned the injections in his autobiography
  • No rules have been broken by Wiggins or Team Sky

What we don’t know and will probably ever know is:

  • Did the Triamcinolone Acetonide give Wiggins an unfair advantage over his rivals or did it just get him back to the level he would be at without his asthma and pollen allergy?
  • Do Team Sky request TUEs for other riders before Grand Tours to give them an advantage?
  • Did the UCI turn down other riders requests for similar drugs but let Wiggins have a TUE because of who he is?

The main point of discussion is Wiggins won the Critérium du Dauphiné in 2012 then had an injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide prior to winning the 2012 Tour de France 3 weeks later.  On Marr Wiggins stated that despite winning the  Dauphiné he was still struggling with his breathing so saw a specialist who then prescribed the injection.

In an effort to understand if this was standard practice at Team Sky did they do this for Chris Froome prior to his Tour de France wins?  The answer is no.  His TUE’s were also leaked by Fancy Bears and he took nothing prior to any of his 3 TdF victories.

As medical records are confidential we will never know if the UCI jut let Wiggins off because of who he was but looking back at the time he wasn’t the massive star that he is now.  Of course he had won gold medals and races but it was the 2012 Tour de France win and subsequent Olympic time trial win in London that catapulted him to his current status.

 

Cycling has a dark, drug addled past and those who follow the sport are fully aware of this. Cycling’s past is the main reason why people are accusing Wiggins and Sky of un-ethical practices with regards to TUEs.

I’ve seen a lot of tweets and articles and they all are black and white.  A lot of the tweeters minds were made up before the TUEs were leaked as they were anti-Sky.  There are many neutrals who are unhappy with all of this, me being one of them, but I place the blame not with Brad, but with the UCI and WADA.

I have been told that if you need the injections that Wiggins took you wouldn’t be able to race.  If this is the case then the application of the TUE should have alerted the UCI and WADA that something dodgy was going on and rejected the application.  This didn’t happen.

I agree that the TUE process and guidance needs to change but that isn’t the fault of any rider.  It is for the governing body, the UCI, to identify problems associated with drugs in cycling and put in place sufficient rules and governance to prevent abuse.

 

If you browse through my blog you will see I’m certainly not a doping apologist, and have been angered by British riders in the past.  I just think that where a guy has followed the rules he doesn’t deserve the treatment that Lance Armstrong got.

Then there is the whole ethics debate but it’s Sunday, I’m going to go for a ride, after all we enjoy cycling don’t we?

Advertisements

Bake Off Betrayal?

What a load of bollocks this is!!

Bake Off is a programme that saved Mel and Sue’s B List careers and in Sue’s own words, gave her the confidence to write a gay sitcom.  Mary Berry had a career prior to Bake Off but just a look at the book isle in Tesco last Christmas shows how far the programme has boosted her earnings.  She had 8 books in the top 50.

Then there is Paul Hollywood.  A relative unknown prior to Bake Off.  You could say the Bake Off gave him everything he has today.  So why is Hollywood the villain?

The BBC don’t make Bake Off, Love Productions (LP) do.  They took the idea to the BBC and they aired it on BBC2.  The BBC Bake Off contract was up and Channel 4 bid A LOT of money for it so LP accepted the offer, rather than sticking with the BBC.  Now if you got offered a job for double or treble the salary would you turn it down?  I doubt it.

Paul Hollywood has done the honourable thing, he’s stuck with the company that gave him everything.  Mary, Mel and Sue have not.  They could have stayed with LP and ensured that Bake Off remained successful but instead it looks like they are making a rival show.

That isn’t loyalty.  That’s stabbing the people in the back who helped you on the way to the top.  Snakes.

In my option Mel and Sue are terrible comedians.  If they were any good they would have never needed to take the Bake Off job anyway.  All they add are innuendo and strange noises that you hear at a children’s play group.  Any numpty can do what they do.

Paul Hollywood is the Simon Cowell of baking – Bake Off will still be a success with him on board.

Karanka, Boro, Cycling, Facebook

About 5 years ago I used to run the biggest Boro Facebook fan page on the site, even bigger than the clubs own page. Then they took it from me, accidentally by all accounts!! The club were very good with me after this and I do not hold a grudge but it was the start of my love dwindling.  The club were kind enough to give me free tickets for a season in way of recompense but I didn’t really take them up on them apart from a few games. It was the beginning of the end… of me going to matches religiously anyway. 

You never stop supporting your club, I’ve got the crest tattooed on my leg for fucks sake (all chavvy like), but my love of the match day experience definitely way gone. I’ve been to a few games since but I’m officially an armchair fan now.  Quite a turnaround from being a season ticket holder and running a website that provided live coverage of games that many fans all over the world relied on.

I then discovered cycling.  It’s so far away from football and that’s why I love it.  Football is easy to have a basic understanding of whereas cycling needs a certain degree of knowledge to appreciate its intricacies.  Why am I banging on about cycling? The reason being is I’m more gutted that Mark Cavendish might not get into the Rio squad than I am with tonight’s goings on at Boro.

Shit has got real at Boro.  The press are reporting arguments, a meeting tomorrow and maybe the end for Karanka.  I slipped tonight into my Boro reporting self of old and started tweeting to see what the fuck was going on.  Phone battery went from 100% to 30% in a couple of hours.  Then it was on Sky Sports News, I started getting texts taking the piss but then, as I got home from the pub, it struck me.  If Karanka was to leave I wouldn’t be that arsed.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Karanka fan.  We are in second place in the league and if we pull our recent form around we’ll get promoted but to me it sounds like kids squabbling in a playground.  Arguments with players, players not playing, terrible results.  It’s all a bit daft.  Can’t the players and manager see that this carry on is not only going to cost promotion but will cost Steve Gibson millions of pounds?  Something will give and unfortunately nowadays it’s usually the manager.  Karanka, if reports are true, has started this process himself.  Gibbo won’t tolerate this kind of shit for much longer.

Our situation is typical of football.  Big egos banging heads together with no real cost to themselves but upsetting those who make football what it is – the fans.  Karanka, Ayala, Downing or whoever won’t be too fussed come Monday, they won’t have to do a 9-5 job for minimum wage, they could take a few years off and still not have to worry about having to pay the Council Tax.  Not like the poor fuckers who spend their wages on a season ticket to see the biggest chance of promotion spunked because the team didn’t want it enough.  

Cycling is a selfless sport, domestiques spend their careers flogging themselves so others can claim victory and never moan.  They work for the bigger picture, the team, winning.  The Boro team / staff could learn a few things from cycling.

Anyway, wonder who’s gonna win Paris-Nice? 😉

As always, UTB, and up Dimension Data.

Maria Sharapova Gets Popped And I Smell Bullshit

Please see update at bottom of the post…

The biggest earning female tennis star of the last ten years, Maria Sharapova, yesterday confessed to us all in a well choreographed press conference that she had tested positive for the banned substance Meldonium.

Meldonium has only been on the WADA banned list since 1 January 2016 and Sharapova neglected to open an email from WADA advising her of this so kept of taking the medication she was given by a family doctor to reduce the risk of diabetes.  She had been taking the drug for the last 10 years.

Lets have a little look as to why the above smells of bullshit…

Now I think (and I may well be wrong) it is feasible that Sharapova may have been taking this for 10 years to enhance their performance legally and has fallen foul of the new WADA code as her and her team were very inept.  I am not stating she has done this, I am trying to show the other, more sceptical, side of the argument.  Firstly though remember that Meldonium was perfectly legal prior to 1 January 2016 and she was able quite legally to take it.  Whether she should have morally is another argument.  Please read below and make your own mind up:

Background

Maria moved to the United States when she was around 7-8 years old and has lived in the US ever since.  Meldonium isn’t licensed in the United States for the treatment of anything.  That means a family doctor in the US would not prescribe it.

IMG_6571

Meldonium is a drug that is used to treat angina, myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure.  Having done a little research there isn’t much out there on the internet that advises it is used in the treatment of diabetes or reducing the risk of diabetes.

Jake Shelley in his blog on what Meldonium is and does describes excellently what the effects of the drug are for a fit and well person taking it for performance enhancing benefits:

  • Decreased levels of lactate and urea in blood
  • Improved economy of glycogen: level of glycogen increased in the cells during the long-lasting exercise
  • Increased endurance properties and aerobic capabilities of athletes
  • Improved functional parameters of heart activity
  • Increased physical work capabilities
  • Increased rate of recovery after maximal and sub-maximal loads
  • Activates CNS functions and protects against stress

And he also goes on to make the point that “Some of the above effects published in the review article were reported from this study. Unfortunately, quite a lot of the research into this topic is only published in Russian”.  Quite interesting when recently some 17% of tested Russian athletes had this in their system prior to WADA banning the drug.

IMG_6572

An ARD doping documentary aired two days ago featured news that a high number of Russian athletes were testing positive for Meldomium in 2015, 1 in 5 to be exact.  Now they can’t all have heart failure or be trying to prevent diabetes.  It would appear Russian athletes have been taking this stuff for some time for reasons other than the treatment of medical conditions.

One final point worth making is Sharapova claims to have taken the drug for 10 years.  This would put the date that she first took Meldonium at around 2005/6.

IMG_6574

Most clinical trials of the drug didn’t start until 2008.  She would have been pretty hard pressed to get any doctor to prescribe it to her prior to this, Russian or otherwise.  And remember it’s STILL NOT LICENSED in the US.

Career

Sharapova rose to No 1 in the world in 2005.  In 2006 she enjoyed more success but in 2007 fell out of the top 5 struggling with injury after injury.  A drug that could help you train harder and recover quicker would have been helpful with repeat injuries.  Even if Maria was taking it to stop diabetes the side effects described would have been an unfair advantage over her competitors.

She returned back to No 1 in 2012 following more injuries and a shoulder operation.  Even a third shoulder injury in 2013 didn’t stop her coming back in 2014 to win the French Open and then going on to the Australian Open final in 2015 without dropping a set.  Pretty impressive when she has been dogged with injury all her career.

Conclusion

Sharapova is an immensely gifted tennis player but by her own admission she has been taking a performance enhancing drug, legally until 1 January 2016, for the majority of her professional tennis career.

She claims this is for the treatment of potential diabetes.  There are many drugs out there designed for that purpose more so than Meldonium.  Why not take them?  A US family doctor would not prescribe her Meldonium.

She claims she didn’t open the WADA email.  She would have had emails 18 months before as the drug was put on the WADA watch list.  The ITF would have emailed her.  WADA have a little leaflet for athletes to tell them what’s banned and whats not.  The Australian Open have a players meeting before the tournament to discuss this stuff.  She pays out lots of money to a manager, coach, nutritionalist and doctor all who’s responsibility it is to keep her out of harms way.  None of them knew?

IMG_6573

When you look at the full picture the one that Sharapova paints seems poor.  Something that your child would do at nursery – certainly not a Picasso.  Because you love your child you think it’s the best picture ever though.  That’s what Team Sharapova are counting on.  Her fans love her and will accept every word.

I think it’s pretty immoral but perfectly legal to take Meldonium prior to 2016 for whatever reason.  To be honest if you have heart failure you aren’t going to be threatening the No 1 spot any time soon.

She continued to take it beyond January 2016 and I do not believe for one minute that no one in her team or Sharapova herself knew it wasn’t banned.  But it is a possibility and we will have to take her word for it.

I predict a 6 month ban and she’ll be back playing before the end of the year.  Just in time for the 2017 Australian Open in fact.  That’ll be a new story in itself.  Soon after that she’ll retire having won lots and lots of money and no one will remember this little blip in an otherwise fantastic, legal drug aided, career.

I leave you with two final thoughts:

IMG_6575

  

9/3/2016 Update – Sharapova stated that magnesium deficiency and a family history of diabetes lead to her taking the drug. Recently Channel 4 News asked the drug manufacturer if the drug was effective in treating these issues. They advised that their drug has no effect on these medical complaints.

(Feminism gone wrong?) Sometimes on Twitter it’s worth making a point…

And sometimes you realise after one reply a person you following isn’t worth it.

  
  
Is disagreed that this advice posted on a local authority website was worthy of a ‘Double sigh’. 

  
As you can see from my reply to Cycling Moose I wasn’t been provocative, I though I was been level headed, but alas I did not expect a reply saying I had a ‘problem’.

A weird reply, I tried to diffuse it, but was sarcastically quoted to her followers. I wondered why this was until this further quote from her account:

  
Seems it was due to my gender. I’m a man so obviously can’t disagree (however slightly) with a woman without it being an issue.

God bless feminism.

Could anyone enlighten me why the advice given by the local authority was so ‘Double sigh’? I’d love to know.

Written by the most sexist cyclist on Twitter, it would appear.
 

Sunderland AFC and Adam Johnson

Today is the first game that Sunderland AFC will have played since their former winger, Adam Johnson, was convicted of grooming and sexual activity with a girl of 15 years.  Since then a number of allegations have been made of the club themselves regarding their handling of the whole episode, from the initial suspension right up to today’s date.

JS84134073

It would appear that the Chief Executive Officer of SAFC, Margaret Byrne, knew of the serious allegations made about Adam Johnson from as early as 2 March 2015.  This statement has come from Durham Police themselves, advising that they told Byrne that Johnson has messaged, kissed, met and engaged in sexual activity with the girl.

Sunderland upon hearing of the above suspended Johnson on 2 March 2015.  This was the MINIMUM action that the club needed to take but the twist comes that only 16 days later following  meeting with the Professional Footballers Association he was reinstated back to first team action on 18 March 2015.

Johnson was then charged with four offences on 23 April 2015.  Grooming and three counts of sexual activity with a child.  A short statement from Sunderland was issued in light of this:

‘Following yesterday’s statement from Durham Constabulary, the club recognises that the formal legal process must take its course and whilst our position remains unchanged, we will keep the matter under review.

‘The club will not be making any further comment.’ 

For someone to be charged the Crown Prosecution Service needs to satisfy itself that there is a high probability that a conviction will be secured.  Byrne would have been aware of this and had also seen evidence from the police that they had submitted to the CPS but still thought it in the best interests of the club to continue to allow Johnson to represent them.

On 9 February 2016 the trail began and  on 10 February 2016 Johnson admitted to grooming and one count of sexual touching with a child.  It took Sunderland until the following day to terminate the players contract.

What were Sunderland thinking?

SAFC started off on 2 March 2015 quite well having suspended Johnson in light of his arrest.  Remember that Byrne, even at this early stage knew of the severity of the charges.  It could be argued that knowing what she knew they would have had grounds at that point to sack Johnson.

Then came the PFA meeting which saw Johnson’s suspension being removed and him joining the first team.  A few points:

  • What message did this send to the victim?
  • Letting Johnson play would have sent a message to the fans that in their opinion Johnson wasn’t guilty.  This in itself may have led to Sunderland fans terrace chants of “Adam Johnson, he shags who he wants” – again, the club allowed this to happen by returning Johnson to the first team.  How would such chants make the victim feel?

  • Sunderland have form for letting players continue to play whilst being arrested, under investigation and charged for sexual offences.  Previously Titus Bramble was allowed to train and play for the first team whilst he waited to go to trail on a charge of sexual assault. Bramble was found not guilty – maybe this is a factor is why SAFC allowed Johnson to continue.
  • What compelling argument did the PFA have to override the knowledge that Byrne held that would compel SAFC to risk damaging their name in the event that Johnson was found guilty?
  • What safeguarding methods were employed to prevent the hundreds, if not thousands of young female supporters having access to the player?

Johnson being allowed to play continued on even when he was charged with the offences with barely a whisper coming from the club.  At this point again there would have been sufficient ground to terminate his contract.  Not only did they not sack him, they didn’t even reinstate the suspension.

On the second day of the trail Johnson admitted to two charges.  It took Sunderland until the following day to sack him.  Surely they had been taking legal action from March 2015 and should be prepared for this eventuality?  It would appear that they were not.  With a typically short statement from Sunderland, the sort which has typified their arms length handling of the saga, they announced they had terminated his contract.

Sunderland must have thought that this would be the end of it for them.  A further statement was then to be released when the allegations that Byrne knew substantially more than what the public was lead to believe she did trying to extinguish the flames of a scandal.

Sunderland’s statement revolves arounds the pleas that Johnson was to make.  It sounds to me like SAFC is saying ‘We will support you and pay you as long as you plead not guilty but plead guilty and we will sack you’.   The message should be ‘We are a family club and care greatly about our young supporters – they are the future of our club.  We will not tolerate any member of our staff, player or otherwise, abusing their position within the club.  Due to this we have sacked Mr Johnson with immediate effect and apologies to the young supporter and her family for any distress this as caused’.

The fact that this case went to court and the girl in question, who idolised Johnson, was put through hell (as detailed in the court proceedings) should have been enough for Sunderland to protect this fan ahead of a predatory player.

Johnson received a reported £2,000,000 in wages whilst on bail.  Even when he is released he should be financially safe.  For the victim she has nothing and feels unable to go back to the club she loved.

It seems to me that Sunderland AFC put their investment in Johnson and their financial interests in staying in the Premier League ahead of their morals and image of a family friendly club.

Even now, after the trial, they are batting off criticism and closing ranks, trying to get on with business as usual.  There seems to be no support for the victim when the club itself was the gateway for Johnson to groom and sexually assault the 15 year old child.  They are absolving themselves of any responsibility whatsoever and Margaret Byrne’s silence is also telling.

Byrne needs to resign or face questions from the press regarding this matter.

If I was a Sunderland fan I would not be happy with how the Johnson saga has been handled and I would demand either change or answers.  The only way fans can do this is to stay away from the games.  If 4,000 fans turned up to the next home game rather than 40,000 the club would realise that they have a problem.  Clubs nowadays can behave how they want as us, the fans, or the lemmings, just turn up regardless due to some misplaced loyalty and how we think we are letting down the eleven players on the pitch if we don’t support them.  Problem is that without the fans there wouldn’t be any players on the pitch.  Sunderland, as every day passes and they keep quiet about this, are insulting every fan of the club.

I personally would not be able to attend matches whilst Byrne was at the helm without apologising and explaining or resigning.  I know the CEO or the Board isn’t the club, they come and go, but so do players.

I’m a Boro fan and our Chairman, Steve Gibson IS our club.  I support Boro, Steve Gibson and then the playing staff.

Do the right thing Sunderland fans, stand up for the image and morality or your club.  It is much more important than anything else.  Do you want to be the club who chants ‘Adam Johnson, he shags who he wants’ or the club that took a stand against the CEO who morally bankrupted the club?

Sail Assisted Cycling?

Saw a recumbent trike at Roots on Sunday sporting a sail.  Now I’m no expert but surely that is illegal!  A big gust of wind or the draft of a passing truck could have a real bad outcome.

And Strava!  Is he putting his rides on Strava?  That’s wind doping gone mad!

Needless to say he was ‘riding’ on his own.  I’m not surprised.  If any of my mates turned up on a machine like that they would be going out on their own!

Should we bomb ISIS?

According to David Cameron we, the residents of the United Kingdom, are under imminent threat from ISIS.  What does that mean though?

Are ISIS going to launch attacks from Syria?

Probably not.  They don’t have capabilities such as long range missiles, ships, planes so they are unable to launch an attack from Syria.

Are they sending terrorists from Syria to attack the UK?

We obviously don’t have details of foiled attacks by the authorities but we can see that recently this has been occurring.  Paris recently was attacked by terrorists who travelled freely through Europe and from Syria.

How at risk are we in the UK?

We have never been attacked by ISIS on UK soil.  The 7th July London bombings were carried out by Islamic extremists but they were radicalised seemingly by action taken by Britain in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.  This was stated by one of the bombers Shehzad Tanweer in a video broadcast by Al-Jazeera on 6 July 2006.

The Glasgow Airport attack again was by British Muslims but they were not radicalised by ISIS but from the teachings of al Qaeda and to take revenge from UK actions in Palestine and Iraq.

The last attack on UK soil was the failed Exeter Bombing.  Again a British Muslim (convert).  No mention of ISIS, seems like this guy again has some problem with UK foreign policy.

In brief, we have been attacked but not by ISIS, by Muslims from the UK who disagree with how the West are behaving in respect of places like Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Should we bomb ISIS?

The problem we have is we don’t know how real the risk of an ISIS attack is.  We have foiled plots and have border controls unlike mainland Europe.  Is this enough to stop any potential attacks?

What we should be asking is why are we being attacked.  It would seem that foreign policy is a large component of why we are at risk of attacks from UK residents so any bombing campaign in Syria would heighten the risk.  But if we don’t support our allies against ISIS it seems weak.  How could be ask for their help in the future?

When ISIS are being bombed already what benefit would be gained from us joining in?  There is the cost, each bombing raid costing the UK taxpayer £508,000.  Where is this money coming from when we are cutting public services at home?

Too many questions, not enough answers

I think there are too many questions that haven’t been answered to go wading into the bombing campaigns in Syria.  It’s another Iraq all over again.  The only thing I am certain of is that at some point we will need to send ground troops in but it seems that even despite experts saying this we are not addressing it.  Cameron says there will be no ‘mission creep’ – I bet we have troops on the ground by the end of 2016.

I think before we go in we need to know who is going to be left with Syria once ISIS have gone.  It will probably be Assad so we need to involve him and the Russians to defeat ISIS.  With Assad onside we can politically influence him in the future and hopefully get him to treat the Syrians far better than he does currently.  We all know what happened when Saddam was removed from Iraq, al Qaeda happened.  Maybe ISIS might not have come about is Saddam was still in power in Iraq.

Anyway, what do I know?  Not much.  Maybe bombing ISIS is the right thing to do.  Maybe it isn’t.  I just hope that David Cameron knows what he is doing as especially with the involvement of Russia this could be the beginning of an almighty fuck up.

Seb Coe Is Laughing At You

Seriously, he’s pissing his pants at you lot.

Just heard Chris Evans describing him as the kind of guy you would want to sort out the mess at the IAAF – honest, trustworthy and a man who gets things done.  Really…

Seb Coe is lucky to be the President of the IAAF.  The Paula Radcliffe suspicious blood passport story broke a couple of days after the IAAF Presidential Election and I wonder, considering the slim margin that he won by, if the story had come out prior what the effect would have been.  Paula still maintains her innocence and obviously never failed a doping test, but we have heard that one before eh Lance?

20120804.justin.gatlin.atletika.usa_.london4-750x332

Seb, the man with a six figure salary from Nike – a company who have no issue sponsoring convicted dopers such as Justin Gatlin, who also sold his company in January 2013 t0 Complete Leisure Group (CLG) so may need that six figure salary a little more that before (see link here from Private Eye).

This Daily Mail article highlights the two sides of Seb Coe, how he stands up for such people as Alberto Salazar, is the chair of a Sports Agency (another conflict of interest), but then claims to feel queasy if Justin Gatlin was to win gold in Beijing.

I saw an enjoyable interview last night with Seb Coe conducted by the excellent Jon Snow who had Coe squirming in his seat:

And Jon made a great point.  Seb Coe was No 2 in charge at the IAAF for the last SEVEN years and claimed to be close friends with the outgoing President, Lamine Diack but says he had no idea that the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport was going on under his Vice Presidency.  The report issued yesterday into this states that the IAAF were aware, so what was Coe doing?

I’ll tell you what Seb Coe was doing.  He was looking after number one as usual.  If you take off the blinkers it is pretty obvious that he’s just about making money, increasing his profile and lording himself about, literally as a Lord.

Coe, a former Tory MP, received his peerage in 2000, for what exactly?  Just remember Lord Coe voted for the Tax Credit cuts this year.  What a smug bastard.

Seb Coe isn’t fit to lead Athletics out of this mess.  As Jon Snow said, he’s either corrupt or was sleeping on the job.

Hey! Labour MP’s!

Your man Jeremy Corbyn got voted in by 60% of your membership and they all knew that he was against Trident renewal.  If I was you I’d stop moaning about him saying he wouldn’t push the button and tow the line of your members or when the next election comes around there will be even less Labour MP’s about.

Your party has changed and jerked wildly left – either get rid of Corbyn and go against the majority of your members or quit the moaning!

It was hardly a secret that Corbyn wouldn’t push the button and be honest about it.  It’s so funny, the journalists are looking stupid trying to analyse the situation – they aren’t use to honest answers.

What a funny going on.