Don’t forget also who started this whole thing off

Wiggo and his lack of ethics?

BWD – I think I’m thinking about the difference between chronic conditions where athletes can not compete at the highest level unless they are receiving potentially performance enhancing drugs, and an acute condition where a PED is given briefly to sort a problem. In neither case am I thinking about non-PEDs like inhalers for asthma.

In the former case they are not the best in the world without the PED – whether someone makes comments about returning to a level playing field or not – so I see no problem with saying you can not compete while you are on these substances.

In the latter, they are simply recovering from a condition with the assistance of some drug which they will not need once they recover. Again no problem with preventing competition while they are on the drug.

What’s wrong with that?

I would say that if someone has a chronic condition that stops them competing to their full potential and there’s a medical solution available that will allow them to do that, but without giving them a further unfair advantage, then allowing them access to that seems reasonable and compassionate.

The TUE system, if it’s fit for purpose, should do that. I realise it’s a fine line, but that’s why you have an approval process by qualified medical experts. That should mean that athletes who apply both have a genuine medical need and that the treatment requested won’t enhance their performance and is appropriate to that need.

If the process works properly it should do that. If it doesn’t do that, it needs fixing. Either procedurally or by excluding some treatments/drugs altogether.

To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16, which suggests that whatever the situation was in the past, it’s somewhat different now.

The situation will be different now. You used to need TUEs for inhalers, but not any more, and WADA says you don’t need to bother with all the TUE stuff when you’re taking the stuff, you can wait until you get popped on a test and then apply for it retrospectively.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-sound-of-silence-brailsford-sky-and-the-questions-still-to-be-answered/

Damn, more journos sensationalising and stirring the pot.

Or maybe just more haterz.

Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the ‘hard’ questions, isn’t it…

Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the ‘hard’ questions, isn’t it…

He’s very good at deflecting negative questions, even when relating to issues like Sky mucking up in a race.

But he must realise this one is beyond him and Sky are currently getting all their ducks in a row, so to speak.

My guess is Wiggo did have asthma or allergies and they spotted an opportunity for a co-incidental marginal gain, maybe not even thinking they were being unethical. And that they’re now frantically drawing up new policies.

He is very good at deflecting the questions, he’s good at looking forward, moving on when in actual fact you want questions answered to something that’s already happened not what’s going to happen.

Anyway, i’ll just leave this here.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/07/news/frustrating-end-for-vaughters_1265

Don’t forget also who started this whole thing off, and why they’re releasing this data of people following gaming the rules.

😉

Calum Skinner

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/cycling/callum-skinner-i-want-to-prove-to-people-my-asthma-is-real-1-4241059

Still following the rules – if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn’t get the advantage they wanted that way.

I want to prove to people my asthma is real

Apparently it is a very simple test that can be done, and is used in hospitals a lot.

They give you something to inhale which if you have Asthma will make your airways restrict, so it should be simple enough to test all pro cyclists

Still following the rules – if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn’t get the advantage they wanted that way.

If you dope legally then its not cheating? Even if you lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn’t cheating?

What is it then?

lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn’t cheating?

So regarding Wiggins where’s your proof he’s lied or exaggerated about his condition ? Thing is you don’t have any do you. For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.

I am an fairly ethical person. But if my whole life/career was based around winning cycle races I would be doing what I could within the rules to give me the best chances possible.

If you have a problem with the system then change the system so the rather grey area of ethics is no longer part of it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/now-we-understand-why-team-sky-never-joined-says-mpcc-doctor/

So regarding Wiggins where’s your proof he’s lied or exaggerated about his condition ?

It was a rhetorical question. Seems you boys don’t care if it wasn’t done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we’re all cleanz now…

Here’s another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?

in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here’s a clue on this one: USADA posted the reasoned document.

Thing is you don’t have any <proof> do you

Couple of weeks ago we didn’t know he had ‘dodgy’ TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next 😀

For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.

Because I don’t believe them, I’ve covered this before. I have no other rational explanation for them coming from nowhere to winning 4 out of the last 5 TdF’s. I don’t believe the marginal gains bollocks, it pretty much always ends up being the same old same old…

Here’s another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?

in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here’s a clue on this on: USADA posted the reasoned document.

So you’re saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn’t tested positive yet? 😕

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/now-we-understand-why-team-sky-never-joined-says-mpcc-doctor/

To be fair, neither did a few other top teams. For anyone wanting more on MPCC these articles are worth a read in this order…

http://inrng.com/2013/02/the-mpcc-explained/
http://inrng.com/2015/02/in-praise-of-the-mpcc/
http://inrng.com/2016/02/mpcc-exodus/

Abolish the MPCC

So you’re saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn’t tested positive yet?

No, I’m saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… well, its a ****-ing duck!

Couple of weeks ago we didn’t know he had ‘dodgy’ TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next  😀

But there’s nothing dodgy about it, all legal and completely within the rules. Maybe something else more damming will come up, I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!

No, I’m saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… well, its a ****-ing duck!

So just the successful ones then, not the slower guys? So Quinatna, Nibali, Contador? Are they doping do you think? Or just the Brits.

The ones that make sudden and unexplained improvements, them.

I don’t really care what nationality they are.

Its the obvious ones and Froome especially to me looks obvious.

I also think Sagan’s on the sauce. But at least he’s entertaining (on a bike)…

I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!

<rhetorical question>If a doper was exposed, would you not be happy of that fact? </rhetorical question>

Me, personally, I’m gleeful if dopers are exposed.

This thread is no place for a reasonable person. Or even me.

To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16

UCI website lists 13 TUEs “granted by the UCI” for 2015,
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
but I don’t think this is all TUEs.

According to the UCI “If you are included in the UCI RTP (registered testing pool), you must apply for a TUE directly to the UCI through ADAMS exclusively.”

The website also points out that approved national anti doping agencies can issue TUEs, and these are automatically recognised by the UCI.

You can see who is in the RTP and the selection criteria here:
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/international-registered-testing-pool-uci-rtp/
The RTP selection criteria for road is professional men and top ranked women, and for track it is “top ranked riders”.

The prominent UK road men seem to be in the RTP, but there are a number of Olympic trackies who don’t appear there.

So my interpretation of the situation is that 13 elite riders in the RTP applied through the UCI for a TUE, but there is an unknown number of non RTP riders with NADO issued TUEs.

I’m surprised there were only 13 UCI TUEs for the elite testing pool in 2015, even for legitimate treatment. If the system is seriously broken, I would also have expected to see a lot more people taking advantage of it.

Seems you boys don’t care if it wasn’t done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we’re all cleanz now…

I brought up the legality at this point in the thread, and the purpose of doing so was simply to contrast with the actions of the paymasters of those who released the data. I’ve refrained from giving any judgements on anybody who’s medical records have been released by the hackers, and will continue to do so. TBH I don’t even like contrasting the two, because they’re completely non comparable.

Though I’ll simply point out that if it is legal then it isn’t doping – in the same way drinking coffee isn’t doping.

Thought caffeine was limited

Yeah, Lance used to drink coffee…nudge nudge etc no smoke without fire etc 😉

Is coffee a banned substance?

Is coffee a banned substance?

Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while…

Late ’80s iirc.

It’s also what Contador and his training chums were drinking when Froome and his mate Ritchie Porte were doing all that extra training (after switching off their power meters of course) above and beyond that carefully crafted Boffin prepared marginal gains training plan from Sky.

I’ve read some historical posts on this forum regards doping, Meds and mechanical.

There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don’t actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there’s nothing to prove or to be proved.

It looks like what most of us on here are disagreeing with is the morale high ground, who thinks it’s acceptable and who thinks it’s unethical. It’s not an argument as such but it boils down to what we believe in.

I personally believe if he has asthma he should compete with it or stop racing at that level at least, and there are those who believe he should do everything within the rules to assist him.

It’s not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.

There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don’t actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there’s nothing to prove or to be proved.

The stuff with mechanical was more that we know how it exists and when you put a motor in what sort of power source you need etc. but when we got stuff lile the magic spinning wheel that wasn’t etc (The organisers checked the bike) and the idea of motors powerful enough to hide in hubs with no mechanical or electrical signatures people were rightly very sketical.

back to the TUE

It’s not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.

Judgement and rules, compete within them, if the rules are bad fix the rules.

The other option is to start letting off smoke bombs and telling everyone that there is no smoke without fire and insisting that there must be something else going on. People bring a colclusion to a discussion a bit too often. Bring facts to the table then work out whats going on.

The one thing about the overarching conspiracy aspect is that how do the people in charge decide who to give the magic juice to?

I think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might ‘cheat’. I got drunk with a guy from Trek in 2002 (I recall) in Pau, we argued the night away about Lance, he was infuriated I couldn’t believe he was clean. We both ended up with egg on our faces as I was a huge Ullrich/Miller fan.

Edit. My point is that US cycling fans saw Lance as a legend in the making, infallible and brilliant. In fact he was the opposite. Most Brits hold Sky in the same manner.

I simply cannot see how the entire Sky team can sit on the front and pretty much neutralise a 23 stage race. We now know that Wiggins was not up to the task unless the playing field was balanced – his exact words, through medicine, this is fundamentally wrong.

If he is not up to it, he should not be ‘re-created’ to be up to it.

Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while..

As I recall some riders would slip a ‘pre-lubed’ caffeine suppositry in as they got towards the end of a stage, to give them a boost for the sprint 😯

think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might ‘cheat’. I got drunk with a guy from Trek

Got pissed with a sky rider so pissed off with people deciding he was a drug cheat for no other reason than they were winning…

New Wiggins interview in the Guardian;

Link

I’m still thinking about the evidence for and against.

To that end, can anyone who has read lots on this point me to somewhere where the confessed dopers mentioned the dose and frequency of their corticosteroids? My googling hasn’t found anything, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there.

Would be interesting to compare the doses of those who were definitely abusing the drug with someone who claims not to be abusing it.

^^^ Just reading Wiggins’s’s’s interview in the Guardian – he’s asking the same question.

That point in the Guardian interview where Wiggins says he ‘assumed’ Brailsford would have known about the injections .. Seems suprising that may not get discussed beyond the team doctor? Or among managers and riders directly? I would have thought on something like this he could say yes, he did know. Of course he would.

Doesn’t sound quite like like the clean* and transparent team Sky that they’ve presented. Marginal gains like what pillow filling each rider wants or something like that, but no chat about TUEs needing needles before a grand tour. Legal it may be but you can see where the questions come in.

*This isn’t illegal I know. It’s not great for credibility though and anyone involved could have seen it coming if they’d have looked at what was being used, how, when and seen it from an outsider’s POV.

That point in the Guardian interview where Wiggins says he ‘assumed’ Brailsford would have known about the injections .. Seems suprising that may not get discussed beyond the team doctor? Or among managers and riders directly? I would have thought on something like this he could say yes, he did know. Of course he would.

Not necessarily. Riders aren’t privy to management meetings, plus they get shunted around for training camps, races etc, they may not even be in the same country. On top of that, medical confidentiality means that the doctors would technically only be able to discuss medical specifics with the rider’s permission. It would be unethical to do that with specific consent.

Ironically you’re assuming a lack of medical ethics. It’s part of General Medical Council procedure, doctors can be struck off for breaching medical confidentiality.

You wouldn’t expect your GP to tell your employer about your medical details without your permission would you?

And somewhere in all this, people forget that they’re dealing with human beings, not automatons or robots. That professional cycling teams aren’t hyper-efficient, super-coordinated, paragons of bureaucratic efficiency.

People make mistakes. Elite athletes are focussed on major events and don’t necessarily register the peripherals. Governments make mistakes. Massive corporations make mistakes. The BBC allowed Jimmy Saville to do what he did mostly unhindered. So maybe it’s a little unfair to assume that a cycling team, especially what would have been quite a young cycling team at the time of the Wiggins thing, to be unimpeachably perfect.

I know that’s not convenient or consistent with the narrative that everything Team Sky does is meticulously planned and calculated, but that’s real life. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold Sky to account and ask fair questions, but I’m not sure you can hold them to unrealistic standards of total systemic perfection or expect their doctors to have breached ethical rules.

I find it hard to believe that, despite all the previous doping scandals, there is no requirement for ALL medicines to be cleared by the team. I’d expect that to be the duty of the rider, not their doctor.