As the news resports go to some lengths to explain, nothing that the recent hacking of WADA's records has exposed regarding TUEs among a number of atheletes, most notably Froome and Wiggo, is new. They've all been previously declared and discussed.
But, there are people in the cycling community, most notably Nicole Cooke, who have been openly critical of TUEs and Froome's use of them in particular. The BBC's own Panorama programme went to great lengths to implicate Alberto Salazar's use of them within the Nike Oregon project and all but accused him of cheating with their widespread use.
I do not for one moment doubt that some TUEs will be entirely and only motivated by the desire to enhance performance, are these instances any less pernicious because of that even if the athelete's condition legally allows for the use?
Genuinely interested in people's thoughts.
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=
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
Problem is you can prove nothing and your proof of his guilt is what someone else did which is the very Non sequitur I predicted
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.”
THEGUARDIAN.COM 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.
Plenty fits its just you dont care nor do you care you have no [roof for your view - the out all night is he wins - well someone ha to and whoever it was you would cry cheat because someone else cheated in the past - its irrational and illogicalbut nothing else really fits..
Its the transformation argument is largely BS as well
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]
basically he got lighter and did not lose power thereby upping hsi wats per kilo to LESS THAN THE DRUGS CHEATS
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.
