[Closed] TUEs, WADA, Froome and Wiggo - what do people think?

Cooke has her own axe to grind maybe?
Anyway, the rules are the rules so no one who sticks by them has any need to defend themselves in any way.

If you listen to Froome being interviewed after a hard stage, he always has a pernicious little cough - sure indication of exercise induced asthma, which is very prevalent in elite athletes. TUE seems fair..

I think this is a bit of a non-story TBH.

My thoughts are that I believe that TUEs are entirely and only motivated by the desire to enhance performance. Like every other rule, they can be manipulated. Froome and Wiggo are great people, inspire generations, but they can't do what they do without the pharmaceuticals that have been let off for using. The drugs are that effective.

I think this is a bit of a non-story TBH.

This leak is definitely a non-story, I agree. But if you watched the Panorama programme about the use of TUEs by Alberto Salazar, that doesn't feel like a non-story. It feels like a legal loop hole.

Its obviously disappointing and you can see how it could be easily abused with a complicit on-staff doctor (where have we heard that before).

But equally its entirely probable that its a doctor treating his patient, but knowing the rules and treating them using the best possible options under the rules.

You would hope WADA would investigate how many TUE are in use for an individual and the reasons for them. Perhaps they need to set a limit, if only for the health of a competitor who is trying to compete when ill/injured.

Athletes get sick like most people, probably more so with the demands of their training. Their drug world is so restricted that they have to get permission to take Lemsip.

It's a non-story drummed up by the Russians as payback for Rio.

If the best they can come up with is a couple of short courses of prednisolone and triamcinolone, this suggests that Wiggins and Froome are clean rather than anything else.

No issue from me considering the drugs they got under TUE. I'm sure TUE's can be abused, but I don't see it in Froome or Wiggo's cases.

Its a non story
Its not new information

People will still continue to make ludicrous non sequiturs to show that it really means they were/are cheats- someone will say Flo jo never failed a test as if this proves something

its a waste of time discussing this as they have decided they are cheats and the facts are shoehorned into this view

As Dr Hutch said on Twitter:
"Depressing the way everyone seems to have done what the WADA hackers wanted, and moved the discussion from state-tolerated doping to TUEs."

He then followed up with:
"I've been beaten both by dopers and by TUE holders. I know which makes me angrier."

I think that about sums up my feelings.

This is also relevant, the number of TUEs granted by UCI (cycling). It shows cycling is getting cleaner, even if you include TUE's.
2009: 239
2010: 97
2011: 56
2012: 47
2013: 30
2014: 24
2015: 13

Bus basically, it's a non story.

If you are taking oral prednisolone for allergies then you are feeling pretty rubbish indeed. I'm impressed he was performing so well whilst taking them. There won't be any other benefits.

Exercise induced asthma is endemic in athletes. There are, however, urine limits for salbutamol concentrations and they are tested. A TUE won't allow you to exceed those limits.

Non-story to deflect from the state-sponsored doping scandal.

Scuse my ignorance but what is a TUE?

therapeutic Use exemption

Take a banned med for a medical condition
Cycling its mainly asthma inhalers and some cremes for sores on the rear

Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE)

It comes after a Monthly Overdose Notice but before a Weekly Examination for Drugs.

Personally I'm pretty much convinced that the only plausible explanation for Froomes 'transformation' at the veulta in '11 can only be that 'nothing has changed' and the old ways still persist.

That said there is nothing in this release that adds to what was known (other than there wouldn't appear to be be any other TUEs that we didn't know about). Even Froome has stated he's had these two....

Whether or not you can square the involvement of Zorzoli (and Leinders?) in the matter bearing in mind Rasmussens claims is a different matter (but again nothing that the leaks assist in anyway).

So whatever is in play, it's not TUEs.

Wot lunge said.

[quote="metalheart"]Personally I'm pretty much convinced that the only plausible explanation for Froomes 'transformation' at the veulta in '11 can only be that 'nothing has changed' and the old ways still persist.So you don't think loosing ~10 kilos could have helped?

I put on 8 or 10 when i switched from pretty much being a pure roadie to doing XC with the odd marathon or MTB stage race. Threshold power went up about 20 watts. Power to weight dropped, a lot. Fastest times up a lot of the climbs i used to do increased, a lot. Not just by a factor of the increased weight/lower W/kg but the fatigue was far worse. So even though i was doing a 30 minute climb 5 minutes slower, the last 5 minutes was purgatory.

This is just sour grapes from a country with an incredibly poor record on doping. And it turns out its a non-story.

If they want some juicy stuff, try cracking open some of the teams who keep employing [i]known[/i] dopers. Or find something that actually shows that sky is running a doping program.

So you don't think loosing ~10 kilos could have helped?

It wouldn't have have hindered his climbing, no, but I don't think he lost 10kg from the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta.... And it [i]should[/i] have hindered his TTing...

The Russians (and ex-soviets) are pragmatic, they know what is needed to get the job done and they do it. They probably don't even see it as cheating. This is why Vino can win the Olympic road race with a clear conscience, he [i]knows[/i] what people are up to. What they can't understand is why the west are cry-babying over it, it's the rules of the game...

Prednisolone pretty common for asthma and allergies...so how far down the catergories do you need to apply for TUE?

[quote="metalheart"]It wouldn't have have hindered his climbing, no, but I don't think he lost 10kg from the Tour of Poland and the Vuelta....MAybe not, but there are other things at play here, peaking for events, targetted events, illness, etc. It all needs to come together.[quote="metalheart"]And it should have hindered his TTing...Only if he lost 10 kilos of muscle. And even that's not a given. Muscle mass doesn't equate to threshold power.

@ghostly: no offence, I think what I think. I've seen it all before. When something amazing happens (Indurain passing climbers uphill, Riis on the Hautacam, Lance into Seistriere, etc, etc.) there's always the same answer. I don't expect this one will play out any different. In the long run.

You think different, no skin off my nose.

ETA: sorry but the point is, even with my attitude, I think this is a non-event (i.e. Bringing it back on topic... 😀 )

Prednisolone pretty common for asthma and allergies...so how far down the catergories do you need to apply for TUE?

[url= https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/science-medicine/prohibited-list ]Full list is published[/url]. You won't get a TUE for an anabolic steroid.

I'm waiting for them to release Astana's information 😆

This release won't really prove anything amongst cycling fans IMO..

The optimistic fans will believe this (leaked) transparency proves that Wiggins, Froome etc are clean, as they're officially declaring their drug usage and have never failed tests.

The cynics will believe it to be the tip of the iceberg - after all you wouldn't be able to apply for a TUE for many performance enhancing drugs, as there aren't enough valid medical uses for them - so not much would be appearing on the records anyway.

no offence, I think what I think. I've seen it all before

Whether LA cheated has NO BEARING on whether fromme cheats

I might as well say I think you are unfaithful because of what someone else did and I have no evidence to prove you are....it's compelling as a argument isn't it?

metalheart - Member
When something amazing happens (Indurain passing climbers uphill, Riis on the Hautacam, Lance into Seistriere, etc, etc.) there's always the same answer.

Actually there are now [i]two[/i] answers ... step forward Femke van den Driessche 😆

But ref. The thread, utter non-story...

[quote="metalheart"]I've seen it all before.On the telly you mean. Hmmmm. Sorry. I'm not convinced. Don't believe you've seen even a fraction of it. 😉

@Junkyard: I said [b]I[/b] can find no other plausible explanation for the transformation from no hoper only selected because someone dropped out, on the transfer list to [b]blam[/b] 2nd in the Vuelta (could've possibly won if not following team orders to shepard Wiggins. Not withstanding his climb with the best and TT with the best and maintaining peak for months on end.

It's a bit like me staying out all night, not letting you see my mobile and sporting a brand new shirt when I turn up in the morning. You've no proof I'm shagging someone else, (hey, I might have some weird blood disease which makes me pass out in a ditch and lose 10kg in weight) but nothing else really fits...

And why bring Lizzie in to things, eh?

😉

Froome and Wiggo are great people, inspire generations, but they can't do what they do without the pharmaceuticals that have been let off for using. The drugs are that effective.

If, as you suggest, Froome and Wiggins "can't do what they do" without TUEs, the obvious question is why are they not using TUEs all the time? Froome has had two TUEs in nine years.

There is some discussion about a possible grey area in the diagnosis of exercise induced asthma:

Dickinson, head of the respiratory clinic at Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science, says he nonetheless views it as asthma: “It depends which respiratory consultant you talk to on whether you put these athletes on a spectrum of asthma, or whether you think that’s purely down to them exercising really hard in a certain environment, and if you take them out of that environment they’re fine. It’s a grey zone. But my argument is it’s a form of asthma.”

It is possible that people could be abusing the TUE system with cooperative doctors, but again, I think you would probably expect to see a lot more TUEs than is shown in the figures quoted in the earlier post by lunge. It is worth noting that the big drop after 2009 occurred when Salbutamol was reclassified and athletes were permitted to use it (below a certain threshold) without a TUE.

So the stuff that Fancy Bears have leaked so far doesn't really seem to be the smoking gun proving that the TUE system is "legalised doping" as some people have suggested. It is diverting attention from the extremely well documented and state supported Russian doping, do they've probably achieved their aim.

i don't get why hack WADA, surely if WADA had info to pop someone they would? it's their job

TUE yer yer we know its playing within a confined field even if you don't need them and they give an advantage, still within the rules

Prednisolone pretty common for asthma and allergies...so how far down the catergories do you need to apply for TUE?

Same rules for everyone in cycling, whether you are a pro riding the TdF or a weekend warrior riding the local chipper. Of course in non-pro minor races, you are extremely unlikely to be tested.

but nothing else really fits..

Since winning his first Tour de France title in 2013, doubts over Froome's performances were raised by various experts, including former Festina coach Antoine Vayer. These allegations were based mainly on his sudden transformation from a relatively unknown rider to a grand tour winner, following his breakthrough performance in 2011 Vuelta. After his dominant showing in the first mountain stage of 2015 Tour, the suspicions increased even further. In a call to answer these questions, Froome promised to undergo independent physiological testing soon after finishing the Tour. The test, arranged by Froome himself, took place shortly before the start of the Vuelta, on 17 August 2015, in the GlaxoSmithKline Human Performance lab in London. Several tests were carried to determine his maximum sustainable power for 20–40 minutes (threshold power), level of maximum oxygen consumption (VO2 max) and his peak power. Froome's peak power was measured at 525 W; his peak 20–40 minute power, at 419 W, corresponds to 79.8 percent of the maximum. At his current weight of 69.9 kg (154 lb) (of which 9.8% was body fat) at the time of test, this corresponds to a figures of 7.51 and 5.98 W/kg respectively. His maximum oxygen uptake was measured at 84.6 ml/kg/min. At the time, he was reportedly almost 3 kg (6.6 lb) heavier compared to his Tour weight of 67 kg (148 lb). Using this number, the VO2 max figure would translate to approximately 88.2 ml/kg/min. He also released results from a previous test, carried out in 2007 while being part of the UCI development programme. The 2007 test measured his peak power at 540 W, the threshold power at 420 W and the maximum oxygen uptake of 80.2 ml/kg/min, at a weight of 75.6 kg (167 lb).[165]

Pretty ****ing damming in your world apparently

Hey, Lance had his medical expert come up with some paper saying it was all losing weight after his cancer and spinning and his massive VO2 max too you know. Except of course, you know, it wasn't.

So, Zorzoli that got a fast track TUE for Froome, say isn't he the dr that Rasmussen (banned pro cyclist for doping) claimed advised him on doping? And isn't Rasmussen linked with a certain Dr Leinders ( now banned I believe) who used be a part time employee for that procycling team SKY round about the same time as Froome's transformation and weight loss?

Naw, yer right, he just lost weight....

Also you do know that Froome himself claims that he has cycled up the Madone faster than the disgraced self confessed drug cheat Lance Armstrong!

*Clean* rider faster than one of the best known EPO responders???

Naw, yer right, it's because he lost a couple kg.... Imagine what Lance could've done if he had known of this powerful secret!

The TUE is a non-story.

Personally I think TUEs should only be available [possibly] in competition for something like Vaughters' wasp sting. Anything else you can get TUE for a medical condition, but can't race during treatment.

At his current weight of 69.9 kg (154 lb) (of which 9.8% was body fat)

Froome at 10% BF? 3 weeks after the Tour?

This particular story is a non event, as others have said.

As far as Froome is concerned, not sure which year it was but wasn't his transformation supposed to be linked to a diagnosis of, and treatment for, bilharzia?

Non-story, Brits don't cheat. Only nasty foreigners #takecontrol

The Lady spokesmen needs to be wary of "protesting too much" though, could be misconstrued as trying to hide something....

You beat that straw man senseless as clearly the reason we think the TUE shows nothing is simply because he is British 🙄

You dont have spout some nonsense on here dude.

TBH this 'leak' isn't really targeted at those who follow cycling. It's pitched squarely at mainstream western media as a clunky attempt to try and somehow sway opinions Russias way.

I can't be bothered with news at ten or the mail but I am sure both will go for a sensationalist angle with these "revelations"...

As far as Froome is concerned, not sure which year it was but wasn't his transformation supposed to be linked to a diagnosis of, and treatment for, bilharzia?

Yes that's correct, though to some people this is merely a convenient ruse to cover up the sinister organised doping program to which Froome belongs...

The TUE story is a non story as already described. However, one thing I'd like to add, from the point of view of a lifelong asthma sufferer, Asthma medications such as bronchial dilators do absolutely nothing for you unless you already have constricted bronchials, or in other words asthma. A lot of endurance athletes do suffer from exercise induced asthma and consequently take treatments. So what? If they're not genuinely asthmatic they don't work. There'd be no point. You won't get an advantage - just normality.

Asthma medications such as bronchial dilators do absolutely nothing for you

Wrong...

Salbutamol orally as tablets or IV in big doses has a fat burning effect and a predictable and short half life/glow time. See the related compound clenbuterol...

Froome has had two TUEs in nine years.

I was a little bit surprised when Froome said that tbh. Of course, he could be telling fibs...but he'd be leaving himself wide open if he was. Much easier to be vaugue about it.

With Sky's marginal gains, I would've guessed they'd be pumped full of everything they can legally get away with. Or maybe that is all they can legally get away with in the case of TUEs before governing bodies raise eyebrows?

It's an interesting moral question though, taking legal performance enhancers. But the legal boundaries need to be there, otherwise where do you draw the line?

I was a little bit surprised when Froome said that tbh. Of course, he could be telling fibs...but he'd be leaving himself wide open if he was. Much easier to be vaugue about it

Apologies if I've misunderstood what you wrote, but the significance of the Fancy Bear leak was that they published a total of two TUEs for Froome; i.e. his medical records confirmed exactly what he said earlier in the year.

I understand that much. I believe Froome has commented on it since the news came out though, stating specifically that he's only had two TUEs over the course of his career.

I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at either tbh, but whatever data 'Fancy Bear' release, or Chris Froome talks about, I'm not taking as the definitive truth. But on the spectrum of believability, he's a world away from Lance Armstrong.

Salbutamol orally as tablets or IV in big doses has a fat burning effect and a predictable and short half life/glow time. See the related compound clenbuterol...

He wont be taking systemic salbutamol.

You only need a TUE if you are likely to exceed a particular level if the banned substance. A pro cyclist can take Asthma medication without a tue. In the 2008 Olympic Games 29% of the cycling medals were won by athletes using asthma medication ( cycling weekly article 2015).

With Sky's marginal gains, I would've guessed they'd be pumped full of everything they can legally get away with. Or maybe that is all they can legally get away with in the case of TUEs before governing bodies raise eyebrows?

Or maybe they have lines they don't cross and like to keep it above board? Perhaps they do it perhaps they don't.

Like Froomes admitted use of tramadol during races?

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.

Like Froomes admitted use of tramadol during races?

Froome was born on 20 May 1985 in Nairobi, Kenya,[3]

And not all Kenyan born British cyclists are successful.... 😳

You think use of an opiod pain medication is not for a performance benefit? Ha, keep sipping that fanboy koolaid.

You're completely missing the point, dual nationality doesn't explain hacking a federation email account to get yourself 'invited' to a race... Or maybe that's all above board and normal too.

And what about the proven doping doctors, nobody seems to be wanting to try and explain their involvement in things... Funny that.

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.

I think masquerading as someone he wasn't in order to get an in to the UCI academy thingy in Switzerland and access to the world champs is hardly the same as doping. All it shows is that he wasn't prepared to wait for bureaucracy in Kenya to run its course before they could be bothered to get behind him if even they would at all. Loads of people have told little white lies to advance their careers, this isn't any different, there was no "hacking" (the connotations of that are a little stronger than guessing a password to a hotmail account). You're getting more trollish with each passing post.

The most frustrating thing for me is that cycling is the most transparent. Having gone from being a huge Pantani fan up to now, I too see any significant in race boost in performance as medically induced, has to be. I just enjoy the sport and try not to get bent out of shape about drugs anymore. The issue is the sports science guys/doctors always find a way around the banned substance list as its lucrative. Tennis, swimming football etc are just better at hiding it as event access is easier to manage i.e. a tennis pro is on court for a short time over a week, footballer on pitch 90 minutes. Tour cyclist covers thousands of miles over many weeks, getting gear to them is far harder!

Of course it's for a performance benefit. Noone would seriously dispute that. It's also entirely legal. No ifs, buts or grey areas, Tramadol is not on the proscribed list.

Two TUEs in nine years? He's hardly Lance Armstrong and you're making yourself look a bit paranoid metalheart.

Do you think it might be time you moved on from cycling to something you can believe in? Crop circles maybe?

OP - Please give us more detail on how you conflate the claims about Salazar's use of TUEs with that revealed in these leaks?

Or were you wanting us to do the actual research?

keep sipping that fanboy koolaid.

You have smear and innuendo and then the cheek [ or possibly stupidity] to attack others position as if we are just ignoring your "evidence" because they are fans

if you can prove he is a cheat i will agree he is a cheat all you have proved so far is that you are a bit stupid and hold conclusions the evidence you present does not support

If anyone needs a PED its you FACEPALM

Personally i have never understood this hatred of Wiggins and Froome and why they always seem to be the centre of debate, you have Russia where there was systemic doping which has been clearly proven, and you have a team like Astana who have escaped somehow being thrown out of the World Tour despite being caught with riders on steroids to cocaine across their teams?

With regards to Froome's "sudden" transformation for the 2011 Vuelta, was it not the case that Sky and their ilk have access to the best sports scientists going and could identify that he naturally had a big engine and they sculpted him into a GT rider, the same team who took a powerful track/ time trial rider like Wiggins and could manage his weight loss so as to not affect his power output to greatly.

At the end of the day, around half of all grand tour riders have Exercised Induced Asthma (only surpassed by cross-country skiers i believe), it comes from repetitive exercise in cold air, add to the fact the huge stresses that riding a grand tour and training for one must have on the body, and there is going to be a need for asthma medication, anti-inflammatories etc, it just needs to be well controlled and disclosed, which is what i feel Froome has done, you can't do more than disclose it openly. He said at TdF this year that he had a chest infection towards the end, but took no medication due to the stick they get, yet how many Astana riders were there??

Indeed cycling has cleaned up its image and I do think we get clean winners now

if you want to llok at cheats we can see where they lie as noted above

Basically some folk will just think whoever is winning is a cheat because that used to be the truth. It's no longer the case but they cannot accept this so they clutch at straws to "prove" it.

I believe TUEs are regularly used to allow doping. The rates of "asthmatics" amongst elite atheletes simply are not believable - and salbutomol does give an advantage even if you are not ashtmatic in my view.

However I think Froome and certainly Wiggins are not huge offenders in this compared to what others have done

IIRC tramadol wasn't banned back then. So while it's a bad idea. It's not illegal.

And I suspect calling a couple of (allegedly very corrupt) volunteers a "federation" is pushing it.

Maybe metalheart is bitter because he could have made it if it wasn't for riders like Froome.......

tjagain - Member
I believe TUEs are regularly used to allow doping. The rates of "asthmatics" amongst elite atheletes simply are not believable - and salbutomol does give an advantage even if you are not ashtmatic in my view.

However I think Froome and certainly Wiggins are not huge offenders in this compared to what others have done

I think that you are confusing classic asthma with the condition Exercise Induced Asthma, they are different things really.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/asthma-elite-athletes-study-swimmers-cyclist-eid <

and salbutomol does give an advantage even if you are not ashtmatic in my view.

I'm sorry but a bronchial dilator cannot dilate a non constricted bronchial. It's physically impossible. If you're experiencing an advantage the the chances are, you're asthmatic.

With that in mind, what is the specific advantage in your view? I hate the bloody stuff & wish I didn't have to take it; even in small amounts it makes me shake like a shitting dog. As for the "fat burning effects"; it's easier to either eat less to lose fat or maintain lean body tissue to maintain/raise metabolism than to rely on any latent effect of high dosage salbutamol.

Scud
No confusion here
Opinions were asked for,that's mine

I believe TUEs are regularly used to allow doping. The rates of "asthmatics" amongst elite atheletes simply are not believable - and salbutomol does give an advantage even if you are not ashtmatic in my view.

The one that could potentially be an interesting story are those that needed that heart drug, but their cardiac issues conveniently all cleared up on 31/12/2015.

OK Sharapova's didn't, because she and/or her doctor didn't pay close enough attention to the memo.

Seems to be mostly Russians that have tested positive, but would be interesting to compare that to TUEs before that WADA deadline. Maybe it was just the Russian doctor that didn't realise Meldonium has more than one name? and all other athletes of different nationalities had their coronary artery issues simultaneously clear up?

Taking a non banned substance is NOT doping

We all know there will be a grey line between supplement and PED but if you follow the rules you did not cheat

Blame the makers of the rules

Blame the makers of the rules

I kind of agree with you, but by way of offering an alternative perspective, would you make the same argument in defence of a large corporation (like Apple or Starbucks) or a wealthy individual using legal tax loopholes to minimise the amount of tax they have to pay?

It's the same moral principle if not the same literal thing.

Loads of people have told little white lies to advance their careers

Two TUEs in nine years? He's hardly Lance Armstrong and you're making yourself look a bit paranoid metalheart.

keep sipping that fanboy koolaid.
This is the level of debate you have to have with someone who has not got the facts to support their view

In [b]my opinion [/b]the use of a opioid pain killer for performance enhancement [i]is[/i] doping. It might not be an actual technical infringement of the anti-doping regulations but it sure as hell is unethical. Especially given SKY's anti-doping rhetoric. YMMV.

It's the same moral principle if not the same literal thing.

Thanks geetee, that's what I was getting at.

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

Try, but very few people have any 'non-constricted bronchioles'. Most biological systems including the lungs exist in a constantly varying state along a spectrum of constriction / dilatation. This is controlled by various hormones and nervous responses.

Asthma is just inappropriate (or, more accurately, exaggerated) bronchial constriction - either spontaneously or in response to something (exercise, cat fur, pollen, cold air etc). To get a diagnosis of asthma, you just have to prove that your lungs are more reactive than average, and the 'cut-off' that's frequently used is 10% variability in your peak flow. Putting aside the fact that peak flow is completely effort-dependent, most people will see *some* improvement in peak flow with bronchodilators. If that gives an athlete a 2-3% benefit (rather than 10%) in lung function (notwithstanding the potential positive effects of salbutamol on metabolism) then I can see it being quite attractive. It would be very straightforward for someone with motivation to get a diagnosis of asthma which would be extremely difficult for others to refute.

Basically, it's not quite as black-and-white as it may appear. WADA have, rightly or wrongly, allowed salbutamol in normal doses for a few years. This probably has the effect of levelling the playing field, rather than muddying the water. At least that's how i understand it.

To me, anybody who uncritically regurgitates the 'party line' (PR & fluff ) to me is sipping koolaid. Sorry if you find this offensive.

You Have not made me reevaluate this conclusion

Try, but very few people have any 'non-constricted bronchioles'. Most biological systems including the lungs exist in a constantly varying state along a spectrum of constriction / dilatation. This is controlled by various hormones and nervous responses.

Asthma is just inappropriate (or, more accurately, exaggerated) bronchial constriction - either spontaneously or in response to something (exercise, cat fur, pollen, cold air etc). To get a diagnosis of asthma, you just have to prove that your lungs are more reactive than average, and the 'cut-off' that's frequently used is 10% variability in your peak flow. Putting aside the fact that peak flow is completely effort-dependent, most people will see *some* improvement in peak flow with bronchodilators. If that gives an athlete a 2-3% benefit (rather than 10%) in lung function (notwithstanding the potential positive effects of salbutamol on metabolism) then I can see it being quite attractive. It would be very straightforward for someone with motivation to get a diagnosis of asthma which would be extremely difficult for others to refute.

Basically, it's not quite as black-and-white as it may appear. WADA have, rightly or wrongly, allowed salbutamol in normal doses for a few years. This probably has the effect of levelling the playing field, rather than muddying the water. At least that's how i understand it.

What sort of effect would this have, in percentage terms, for someone's VO2 max versus, for instance, the natural variation in haematocrit across the population?

would you make the same argument in defence of a large corporation (like Apple or Starbucks) or a wealthy individual using legal tax loopholes to minimise the amount of tax they have to pay?

Absolutely. Blame the makers of the rules. Apple and co are getting away without paying tax because taxation law allows them do that. I don't agree with what they are doing, and would not defend it, but I understand why they are doing it as a corporate entity trying to maximise their profits.

If it is not banned, athletes can use it.

I would, and have, made the same argument KCR. I was suggesting it to Junky because I think that might not be the case; I think that Junky's sense of moral purpose and correctness would argue the opposite; that it can be legally right but morally wrong.

If you use a TUE and in your own mind the main objective is performance gain even if you can medically justify it, then don't be surprised if people judge you harshly.

That said, my position on this is quite the reverse. I don't see why someone born with say a malformed hand but a VO2 max of 65 and an FTP of say 290 should be given quite so much attention and accolade for riding a bike fast and someone born with a VO2 max of say 30 and a trained FTP 240 watts (this is not me BTW) is completely ignored.

In my view, from a pure spectator/societeal perspective, sport is either genuinely elitist or you should allow everyone to everything available to them to level the playing field.

In the future genetic modification will completely level the playing field at which point all competitive sport will be pointless.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/wada-cyber-attack-raises-questions-for-sky-cycling-and-tue-system-at-large/

http://road.cc/content/news/117553-team-sky-riders-used-controversial-painkiller-tramadol-claims-ex-pro-michael

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.

Sometimes TUE's aren't used as a PED, but as a masking agent for PED's.

(genuine question) What could Asthma medication mask?