I’d be interested to know if that’s still true.

I remember Pedro Delgado testing positive for Probenecid in ’88, which was apparently a recognised masking agent, but is there actually anything you can take these days that can specifically be used to mask a performance enhancer?

If masking via TUE is possible, common sense would suggest lots of people would be using TUEs, but as noted previously, the total number of TUEs issued to cyclists is pretty small (13 last year: http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/).

mikewsmith – Member

What is its performance enhancement?

Excellently mental dreams.

OK so, surely the real story here isn’t about TUEs or Froome or any of that; it’s about the way that all these athletes are required to constantly feed doping authorities enormous amounts of detail about their lives, and WADA can’t be trusted to look after it.

Do WADA get access to the whole UKAD records system- the location tracking etc?

@mikesmith: from that Barry link above (seens as you obvs can’t be bothered to click on it 😉 )

“The effects are noticeable very quickly. Tramadol made me feel euphoric, but it’s also very hard to focus. It kills the pain in your legs and you can push really hard.

“After I crashed in the Tour de France I was taking it, but I stopped after four days, because it allows you to push beyond your natural pain limit.”

@Northwind: I think one of the main problems (alluded to in the cyclingnews link above) is that the UCI only pursue cast iron cases that they know they can win. So anybody that just ‘looks’ a bit dodgy passport wise isn’t necessarily pursued… I mean Lances comeback bloods were supposed to be dodgy enough for USADA to use as ‘in’ to bring him down (most of his tour wins being past the SOL) yet the UCI never raised a murmur. How could that even happen? Nothing!

I’d say that allows a doper to dope within limits (bandwidth doping you call it) and as long as it doesn’t show a real spike (which makes missing tests suspicious, read Hamiltons book for more detail). This stops the obvious excesses of the past but a good responder could dope within the limits and get a sufficient advantage over others accordingly.

This coupled with I’ve picked up (rightly or wrongly) that testing isn’t as all encompassing as you’d expect. A couple years ago there were reports from new-pros that they’d been tested all of three times in a year or something! The opportunity is there and only the threat of OOC testing is there to stop people…

Up thread people state they feel the image of cycling has changed. And it has, there’s a lot energy been expended in this area. Unfortunately I don’t think the reality quite matches the image.

Still, cycling looks like a WI tea party compared to this lot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/37371735

I guess only a very specialised doctor could tell what can Asthma medication mask, I was only suggesting another point of view.
In any case, we won’t know it until a few years.

Since a few years I watch cyling the same way my son watches WWE, I know it’s not real, but I enjoy watching it anyway.

I think that Junky’s sense of moral purpose and correctness would argue the opposite; that it can be legally right but morally wrong.

In general yes, and certainly for extreme tax avoidance- apple, amazon, starbucks etc where the organisation is not real except in the sense it is on paper- did apple not have a head office with no staff for example- which is like having a TUE without the medical condition or basically cheating.Its a lie its not really their head office a bit like not really having the medical condition but getting the TUE

In terms of TUE i would say if someone has them occasionally- or proof of asthma its probably not to cheat. If you have 50 a year for every substance possible then you are cheating. Tax avoiders tend to be doing the later – everything possibly to avoid tax which is legal but immoral but it depends what you do. I am certain someone somewhere on a TUE or the heart drug they all stopped when it became illegal. They were cheating

I’m sorry but a bronchial dilator cannot dilate a non constricted bronchial.

Actually this isn’t true. A healthy subject can be bronchodilated but this isn’t easily measurable by normal spirometry. Airway resistance is reduced slightly but this is measured using a plethysmograph! I worked on bronchodilaing volunteers using beta agonists (salbutamol’s grandchildren, actually including vilanterol and plenty of others that did not become medicines) for a long time. The performance benefits will be negligible because these are just resting changes not at threshold.

Urine levels for beta agonists are set, and adjusted for dehydration after a race. You really wouldn’t want to take systemic doses for long term metabolic effects.

As for masking, there is very little reason for masking TUEs such as diuretics. Professional athletes will not be treated for blood pressure, as a rule. Same for anabolic steroids.

“The effects are noticeable very quickly. Tramadol made me feel euphoric, but it’s also very hard to focus. It kills the pain in your legs and you can push really hard.

Until your legs give in, but it will allow you to battle through the pain of say breaking bones in your hand. Hence it’s a completely legal and allowed medication that doesn’t feature on the banned list. Also as said the positives also have a bunch of negatives associated with it. Trying to tell people off for taking things that are allowed is a bit pointless isn’t it? The guys we are talking about here also have very few TUE’s over their time so it looks like it was the specific reason they exist which is to allow the right medication for a condition to be administered under controlled conditions.

Jeroen Swart seems to be a little uppity about Wiggins. The “no-needle” bullshit in his book seems to be coming back to bite him.

It is not a first-line therapy and it certainly wouldn’t be something that I would be comfortable giving to a rider as a preventative medicine. So one of two things is going on: either they have prescribed it as a preventative medicine, which doesn’t sit well with me, or he had such serious symptoms that they were completely uncontrollable, and that just happened to happen coincidentally a couple of days before he contested a Grand Tour. And at different times of the season, because the Giro isn’t anywhere near pollen season and nobody suffers from dramatic allergies in the Giro.

Michael Rasmussen talked about applying for a TUE to get this injection. He said that Geert Leinders did exactly that for them. He would apply for a TUE for some arbitrary illness, and then inject them with exactly the same substance, Triamcinolone acetonide, just before a Grand Tour.

He doesn’t say he believes Wiggins is dirty but that the whole thing leaves him cold that it seems the drug shouldn’t be covered by a TUE and Wiggins/Sky statements in the past contradict this leak.

Medical Opinion: Why details in pros’ leaked TUEs are worrying

mikesmith – blah, blah, blah

That’s the spirit, keeps shifting the emphasis away from the point. Have you been studying the lance Armstrong fanboy 101? This is classic. Barry claims some Sky riders were using tramadol every race. I can’t tell you why, you’d need to ask Sky’s doctors (I’d assume). Did you actually even bother to read the link?

The point is that proscribed medicines are being routinely used by cyclists (and sportspeople generally) out with their guidelines. See backinirelands and atlaz’s links. Why is this happening? there are much more appropriate medicines out there (apparently).

One possibility is that it’s not for the stated use…

And worrying that Wiggins cort use would appear to mirror Rasmussens (and let’s not forget this is what Lance got his backdated TUE for in ’99!) use…

ETA: oh, there’s that (cycling doctor banned from for doping) Geert Leinders name popping up again in Atlaz’s link…. Funny that…

OK so here we go, pro’s are using medication that is not on the list of banned stuff. Maybe they are in which case if it’s a problem put it on the banned list.
The article is great, lots of some and people. If you have a problem with what people are doing name them, come out and shout it – who was using it, who was taking it. Again it’s not on any banned list is it…..
Apart from the other stuff like Chris Froome going to the huge trouble of being born in Kenya to pretend to be from Kenya have you got anything more?

In the context of the other doping related scandals of recent years, it’s a complete non-story. However, it does still bring up some interesting points.

In a climate of great reward for winning, and margins being incredibly small (Quintanas 1 min 23 margin at the vuelta being 0.0002% of the overall time!), it’s entirely unsurprising that competitors and their teams will look for any and all marginal gains they can find within the rules. This will include supplements and other legal pharmaceuticals.

I find the issue of PEDs fascinating. To be included on the list, two of the following criteria must be met:

1) Enhances performance
2) Harmful to athlete health
3) violates the spirit of sport

Actually proving something enhances performance is near on impossible. (The few good studies on anabolic steroids for example suggest the only performance enhancing benefit would be pure power sports such as weight lifting) You can’t do proper randomised control trials, so all evidence for true performance enhancing is based on opinion and supposition.

You could argue any pharmaceutical presents a risk to user – ibuprofen causes GI bleeding in a percentage of people if taken too long, but it’s not banned? (And widely used by athletes on a regular/semi permanent basis!) Therapeutic use is a balance of benefit v risk, surely if there’s no therapeutic indication then no drug should be used, as I can’t think of a single side effect free drug.

As for spirit of the sport…. What differentiates someone taking analgesics to allow them to train longer and harder, or compete through their pain barrier than they naturally would, from someone taking steroids/EPO/growth hormone/whatever else to augment their training regime? Either way they’re taking pharmaceutical agents to allow their body to perform beyond its natural capabilities.

Playing devil’s advocate, I’m entirely convinced we’ll never remove the cheats, they’ll always try and we’ll never catch them all. We’ll also never be rid of those that push to the very limit of the law. The rewards are simply too great. Perhaps it wouldn’t be the worst idea to make it a free-for-all… Use what you want, you know the risks involved and if you wish to accept them that’s your call! At least then everyone would know how level (or otherwise) the playing field actually is.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/18/bradley-wiggins-world-anti-doping-agency-hackers-russian-leak

@mike: why do you insist on trying to obscure the point, I never accused Froome of pretending to be Kenyan, I accused him of hacking an email account and therefore cheating his way into the UCI academy. Thus showing he is prepared to bend the rules in the pursuit of his aims. So please, stop making shit up. And, I don’t know, maybe address the point for a change.

Thus showing he is prepared to bend the rules in the pursuit of his aims

What’s the relevance of this statement to a discussion on TUEs?

Have you been studying the lance Armstrong fanboy 101?

Oh the irony as your view is essentially he cheated therefore everyone who comes after him must be a cheat – you are the one most affected by LA misdemeanours not us it has, clearly, clouded your view of all future TdF winners which is a shame..oh and the great non sequitur that he guessed a password so he must take PEDS

Have you taken tramadol metalheart? What is its performance enhancement? For me it makes me want to curl up in a happy ball and sleep. It knocks you sideways but is a very effective pain killer. Kind of a last resort thing and you will be working harder to ride on it.

I wondered this when I first read that tramadol story. I often take the odd one when my dodgy back is playing up and I need a good night’s sleep. I can’t imagine trying to ride a bike on it, especially at high speed in a peleton. I wonder if that’s why there are so many crashes these days?

Tramadol is hideous stuff, I took it for a cracked rib.

Made me very, very soporific then it made me violently ill.

Certainly not something I’d take if I was about to go & race….!

Well forgive me your punctuation left it open to a bit of interpretation

Froome has been proven to bend the rules to get what he wants (hacking emails, pretending to be Kenyan cycling Fed, etc). The guy has previous.

Probably best to keep the parts a little separate here.
Froome and Wiggins both had Tue (along with hundreds of others) these were approved by wada.
They took stuff, that may or may not have a benefit. At any stage wada could have said no. For me that is now end of it.
Members of team sky took tramadol (a legal pain killer that requires no Tue.
By took we still don’t really know when how much and what for, if it was in the evening to deal with crash injuries then probably not a bad idea. Low dose during a stage post crash probably the exception. Similar to a bunch of other pain killers. If it’s a long term thing not good but again not against the rules.
Froome did something to get on a cycling programme (probably the least corrupt way in Kenya.
And we now have a fantastic cyclists racing for a country that appreciate it.
Team sky are massive drug cheats (not supported by anything substantial) I’ll leave other to make that link.

By took we still don’t really know when how much and what for, if it was in the evening to deal with crash injuries then probably not a bad idea. Low dose during a stage post crash probably the exception. Similar to a bunch of other pain killers. If it’s a long term thing not good but again not against the rules.

Team Sky have admitted having “finishing bottles” in the past and have admitted to in-race tramadol usage. Given other teams have also admitted having tramadol laced bottles for the end of hard stages, it’s not that unlikely that at some point (Michael Barry’s experience is a little out of date) Team Sky did the same.

TBH, the TUE leak is ONLY interesting because of Wiggins previous assertions he never had injections related to cycling where clearly this was a lie. It doesn’t indicate he’s a doper (despite what confirmed dopers like Jaksche say) but it doesn’t stop people starting to wonder what else he lied about. The Froome leak is a total non-event as he’d already copped for the TUEs.

The rates of “asthmatics” amongst elite atheletes simply are not believable

I dunno. I’m not asthmatic but a few years ago when I was riding a lot more than I am now I would sometimes find my breath was a bit odd for a while after finishing a long-ish (say 60 miles) road ride, like it was a little bit restricted or something – it was a little bit disconcerting. Whether this was exercise-induced asthma or not I don’t know, but it seems plausible to me that a) if I was doing pro-level mileage then I might have had more of a problem with it, and b) it isn’t surprising that it would be more prevalent in athletes than the general population.

As pretty much everyone else has said the leak is pretty much just highlighting that TUEs are being used, so in that sense it’s a non story to cycling buffs at least. For everyone else though it’s a stain and the difference between that and ‘proper’ doping is just weasel words so in that sense it’s quite damaging.

And I’d always assumed that Wiggins’ “no needles” thing was a turn of phrase- IMO it’d be very surprising if he’d never had a needle stuck in him during his time with Sky or BC. Unfortunately for him clarifications look a lot like evasions at this point.

the great non sequitur that he guessed a password so he must take PEDS

Except what I said was he has shown that he is prepared to bend the rules when it suits him in the past. Its not illogical to think he might have done it again since. You’re making the (il)logical leap all by yourself.

Well forgive me your punctuation left it open to a bit of interpretation

Well, other people worked it out (they were offend by the use of ‘hacking’) but still I see you avoiding the point (lying/fraud).

For all those wondering why Sky have used tramadol I suggest you ask their ex-consultant Dr Geert Leinders. According to banned cyclist M Rasmussen he was very helpful in this area…

you are the one most affected by LA misdemeanours not us

You are correct. You see the reason for this is that I stopped watching the Tour in ’05 after Lances speech about not believing in miracles. The very next year Landis got popped…
I happened to be cycling in France in ’12 with a couple of fanatics and I ended up watching the Tour as result (I admit I did get caught up in it). Then the shit with Armstrong really hit the fan and I watched the UCI try and get it whitewashed (USADA didn’t have jurisdiction, Verbruggen stating that Lance didn’t dope, etc.) which let to the famous reasoned decision being posted on the internet so it couldn’t be ignored and then LA was thrown under the bus).
So Wiggins winning and UCI trying to cover up are linked in my mind. The current debacle re. Wiggins TUE and its similarity to what Rasmussen says Leinders did for him (and ironically it being the thing LA tested positive for in ’99!) is not to be easily dismissed.

But you all seem to think that cycling is now clean, etc. I seemed to have missed that particular memo. Cookson’s son’s links with SKY PT are not particularly reassuring either, looks like the IAAF nepotism thing to me… and we know that ended well!

The problem with Rasmussen is he’s not that credible when it comes to talking about anything other than doping he witnessed. Got Hesjedal bang to rights but isn’t the right person to talk to about contemporary riders as he isn’t a rider any more.

Except what I said was he has shown that he is prepared to bend the rules when it suits him in the past. Its not illogical to think he might have done it again since. You’re making the (il)logical leap all by yourself.

This is why you come across strangely in this thread. It’s like saying that because someone once stole a packet of fruit gums, they “logically” would rob a bank. One thing does not lead to the other and it’s a stupid argument to suggest it does and you are only doing it because there is no PROOF (it’s a key word) that Froome is anything other than clean and mud slinging is all you’ve got left.

So Wiggins winning and UCI trying to cover up are linked in my mind.

Another reason you come off a bit weird. You have them linked in your mind because of an accident of timing and therefore you believe it’s a solid gold bit of proof. It isn’t.

The irony is, you may not be wrong about doping but your reasoning/proof is absolutely lacking.

And from what i hear, the KCA is a a shining example of democracy and open management of cycling.

Or not.
I’d “hack” their emails to get a decent ride (or any ride) elsewhere as well.

10 seconds of googling will show you how much dissatisfaction there is, and it’s more along the lines of why Verbruggen and McQuaid were kicked out than the current minor grumbling and dissatisfaction with Cookson. Even the BCF disaster in the mid 90’s looks like a minor blip.

Those of us who have followed professional cycling for a while are always going to find it hard to believe what we are told. Been lied to once too often. However, I do think that Wiggins was probably cleaner than Armstrong and Froome is probably cleaner than Wiggins. It’s not much, but it will have to to.

And I’d always assumed that Wiggins’ “no needles” thing was a turn of phrase- IMO it’d be very surprising if he’d never had a needle stuck in him during his time with Sky or BC. Unfortunately for him clarifications look a lot like evasions at this point.

Thing is, his “no needles” comment was pretty much unequivocal if you read it:

I’ve never had an injection, apart from I’ve had my vaccinations, and on occasion I’ve been put on a drip, when I’ve come down with diarrhoea or something or have been severely dehydrated.

so not really a “turn of phrase”, not when it’s expanded on with such specific detail as that.

His line now seems to be “Oh, no I didn’t mean THOSE needles, yeah, I’ve used them, I just meant THESE OTHER needles, they’re the ones I’ve not used.” – if all he’d said previously was “I’ve kept the the UCI “no needles” rules” then fair enough, but to go into the level of detail of seemingly listing every type of occasion he’s been punctured by a needle, while leaving some out, really is, being charitable, disappointing (for the poster boy of the post-Armstrong “clean” era), being less charitable, suspicious.

he has shown that he is prepared to bend the rules when it suits him in the past. Its not illogical to think he might have done it again since. You’re making the (il)logical leap all by yourself

Would it be illogical or logical to assume that people who speed also break other rules and are all just criminals about to commit other fences as they have shown “form”? Its just not logical

you all seem to think that cycling is now clean, etc. I seemed to have missed that particular memo.

NO we dont we know folk cheat and we know what evidence is – STRAW MAN- though you might just think its what we really think and then a childish memo line
Do you always debate like this? 😕

Cycling is cleaner than it has ever been. It is not clean
I have seen no [compelling*] evidence to implicate sky or Froome unlike say Astana and Nibbles – the later merely by association.

* there will always be some mud and TUE and rumour due to cyclings legacy

The problem with Rasmussen is he’s not that credible when it comes to talking about anything other than doping he witnessed.

He doesn’t have to be, he establishes a method, how its done. Its the similarities and the facilitators of doping that sets the alarm bells off.

This is why you come across strangely in this thread. It’s like saying that because someone once stole a packet of fruit gums, they “logically” would rob a bank. One thing does not lead to the other and it’s a stupid argument to suggest it does and you are only doing it because there is no PROOF (it’s a key word) that Froome is anything other than clean and mud slinging is all you’ve got left.

But I’m not arguing thats the reason why I think Froome is on the sauce, I’m saying he’s dodgy and revels in it as part of his book. I actually kinda think Froome is a troll (and he’s bloody good at it too). Pretty early on I said I wasn’t trying to provide you (collectively) with proof. For starters most of you are koolaid drinking fanboys, remember? 😉

Obviously if there was cast iron proof Froome would be banned. So we can drop that bullshit right now. That is LA fanboy 101: never tested positive, etc., etc., etc.

As stated earlier on I can’t see how Froome tranisitioned from domestique about to get canned to 2nd in the Vuelta. In ’12 he was the best climber and 3rd best TTer in the Tour FFS! That alone should set alarm bells ringing. In the bad old days you had climbers and you had TTers and never the twain met… until EPO, all of a sudden, ‘fat boys’ dropping pure climbers…
How did Froome lose weight but not power? His bilharzia that happened to reappear conveninently at the same time every year but despite a chronic condition he still manages to crush at the Tour. Personally I don’t buy it.

Another reason you come off a bit weird.

Thanks! 😉

You have them linked in your mind because of an accident of timing and therefore you believe it’s a solid gold bit of proof. It isn’t.

No, what I have linked in my mind is this:

1) the UCI, the regulatory body charged with ensuring no cheating/doping, defending LA against all evidence to the contrary and trying to shut down any discussion.

and

ii) SKY, etc, cycling is clean now… How can it possibly be if the UCI are sheilding the dopers? how many blood passport prosecutions have taken place to date? none, thats how many. Not even Lance!

and Wiggins went from moaning about doping to moaning about people who moaned about doping… I can’t forget his love-in with Lance either, the man was starstruck the year he came fourth after Lance. And his bollocks about one day learning he could climb at the Giro, you what? Both Wiggins and Froome have tapped into something to get that thin yet maintain power. I have my suspicions as to what that is, can you guess?

As previously stated, I’m not going to even try and provide ‘proof’. If you come to a different rationalisation then fine. But it doesn’t add up for me.

@roverpig: by necessity Wiggins has to be cleaner than Armstrong, the bandwidth thing. I don’t think Froome is cleaner, but I do think he’s smarter. The (lack of) TUE thing alone would prove that.

Interesting that wiggins TUE for steriods are all before grand tours he one?

I read a point from a Doctor that 1) he would never use that mediction as a preventative and 2) that if someone was so ill as to need that drug then they had no business racing.

I think in general TUEs are very much overused and are often to cover if not doping practices that are certainly straying into grey areas

how many blood passport prosecutions have taken place to date? none, thats how many.

Maybe do a _tiny_ bit more research, as one google search and the first hit gives me 14 names of cyclists suspended based on the biological passport

Do you always debate like this?

This isn’t debating…

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/biological-passport-nowhere-near-effective-137331

that wiggins TUE for steriods are all before grand tours he one?

he only won one so why all?

edit tre as when a fact ids brought up that there have been no prosecutions you then say its not effective – moving the goalposts surely you know of the sky rider done under it[sort of but i am sure that is how you would spin it]

Maybe do a _tiny_ bit more research, as one google search and the first hit gives me 14 names of cyclists suspended based on the biological passport

Ha, ha, yeah mebbe I should’ve checked that one 😳

You’re right, I buggered that one up… Apologies.

Suspensions or prosecutions, though… 😆

@junkyard:

“If you’re a cheat, you’re a cheat, you’re not half a cheat. You wouldn’t say, ‘I’ll cheat here but I’m not going to cheat over there; I’ll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.’

Re your edit: see the link I posted to above your post – its designed to catch the obvious doping (but allows the bandwidth). And its great to wave and go look we’re all clean now.

Oh and this sky rider?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sergio-henao-cleared-by-uci-over-biological-passport-case/

In the same manner that you claim the fanboys are ignoring evidence you are seeing fault in everyone and everything.

Is every pro rider clean? No of course not.

Is every pro rider taking banned substances? Again, no. Or perhaps more accurately, so unlikely that the answer is basically “no”.

The truth then lays somewhere between these two extremes and is slightly complicated by the fact that new substances get added to the banned list at regular intervals – a case in point is Maria Sharapova earlier this year with Meldonium. It is quite likely that many riders are taking substances that have a beneficial effect but which aren’t yet banned because there’s no valid (one that would withstand a legal challenge) test for them. To a large degree the testers can only find what they search for, see the BALCO story.

According to Wikipedia (usual caveats apply) Froome’s bilharzia has only returned once in 2012 after his initial diagnosis in 2010, hardly every year is it?

Similarly, losing weight without losing power (or perhaps more correctly not losing the same percentage of power as weight lost), easily done. In fact so easy I’ve done it and I’m trying to remember when I last took any medication banned or otherwise.

You come across as one of those people for whom no amount of proof of honesty is good enough. It doesn’t do you any favours.

The truth then lays somewhere between these two extremes

I’d agree with that. I take your point about appearances. I was getting pissed off at posters picking up on minor points and ignoring the main ones to and try (IMO) deflect. Believe it or not I actually wanted to believe in Wiggins, however the more I read the less happy I was to do so.

According to Wikipedia (usual caveats apply) Froome’s bilharzia has only returned once in 2012 after his initial diagnosis in 2010, hardly every year is it?

I thought he claimed three years. But in truth I cant be arsed going back through stuff from 3-4 years ago just to argue the toss. I still think its an all to convenient ‘excuse’.

You come across as one of those people for whom no amount of proof of honesty is good enough. It doesn’t do you any favours.

Fair point. It would be nice to have some faith in the UCI though, because without that it all falls flat. Like all governing bodies there is no real incentive to prosecute and drag your sport through the mud if you can keep the lid on things and pay lip service.

Sorry, just found this:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/tom-english-they-could-have-afforded-any-doctor-but-they-went-for-one-who-was-involved-in-one-of-the-many-scandals-that-have-dogged-this-sport-1-2426229

From 2012… If you were wondering why I’ve been banging on about Leinders a lot on this.

Well 2010/11, 2012 & 2013 Froome was been treated for Bilharzia:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/tour-notebook-stage-15-froome-battles-parasite-media-cars-expelled_230162

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-sports/chris-froome-his-ambitions-bradley-wiggins-and-winning-the-tour-de-france-8637316.html