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

Having read that Cycling Tips piece now, Wiggins does have some questions to answer.

So now we know what Froome really meant when he said his 2013 TdF win would "stand the test of time" then?

😉

Wiggins answered the questions.

He lied. 🙁

Wiggins doesn't really give a **** though. He's got his money, he's retired and the UCI/Wada/UKAD are unlikely to find anything dodgy in his urine to get him banned as the TUEs were with their knowledge.

Simple solution, treat asthma as a disability, move it to Paralympics with it's own category, allow as much treatment as you want then, in or out of comp.

Simple solution, treat asthma as a disability, move it to Paralympics with it's own category, allow as much treatment as you want then, in or out of comp.

You've seen the stats for elite athletes with asthma right? The simpler answer is for the TUE system to be irreproachably ethical and regulated. It's all very well saying that athletes shouldn't be allowed TUEs at all, but what if - in an extreme case - their health is at risk through not being allowed access to a particular medicine?

They are still people. They still have a right to medical confidentiality and appropriate treatment. If there's a problem with the system that's allegedly allowing some athletes to use TUEs to their advantage with the connivance of doctors, WADA needs to fix the system properly.

If people trusted the system and WADA, we wouldn't be having this discussion because if a TUE application wasn't genuine and justified, it wouldn't be approved. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd hope that would be the case.

You've seen the stats for elite athletes with asthma right? The simpler answer is for the TUE system to be irreproachably ethical and regulated. It's all very well saying that athletes shouldn't be allowed TUEs at all, but what if - in an extreme case - their health is at risk through not being allowed access to a particular medicine?

What I'm saying is is they're not really all that Elite if doing it makes them sick. If the meds are necessary for their health, by all means take them, but withdraw from competition and wait 6 months before re-entry after any traces of the meds stop showing on [i][u][s]daily[/s] weekly[/i][/u] blood tests.

I think what smells here is if Wiggins or Sky say no needles that shouldn't come with some clause or poor memory excuses, it's either 'none' or 'some' right?
From that article,

[i]Wiggins himself in his autobiography said he had only ever received an injection for an immunisation and some drips. You are not likely to forget an intramuscular injection before every major Grand Tour that you have competed in for the win.

..The latter is a synthetic corticosteroid used to treat allergies and was used by Wiggins prior to his Tour de France campaigns in 2011 and 2012, and his Giro d’Italia ride in 2013.

Given that Wiggins’ autobiography My Time stated that he had not received injections and given that Team Sky stated in the past that it would send a rider home rather than give them TUEs when ill, the information has led to plenty of debate. Had Wiggins been truthful? Had the team stayed true to its claim that it was ethical and transparent?

And, not least, should we be concerned that injected corticosteroids have known performance-enhancing benefits?[/i]

A genuine one-off shouldn't really need disclosing really I agree, but if the team is so perfectly clean maybe it should have been.

This point that a rider appears to have used a legal yet P-E TUE medication right before each of 3 grand tours .. OK it's not illegal but it hardly looks like totally clean riding either.

A genuine one-off shouldn't really need disclosing really I agree, but if the team is so perfectly clean maybe it should have been.

What you're missing is medical confidentiality. Riders can agree to disclose TUEs like Froome did, but forcing riders or doctors to disclose personal medical conditions as a prerequisite to getting treatment puts them in a potentially awful position.

What if a rider needed treatment for a sexually transmitted disease or some sort of mental health issue, why should he or she have to disclose that to the world in general?

What you really need is not a public TUE system, but one that is properly regulated by WADA and the medics involved so there's real scrutiny of scenarios where a potentially performance-enhancing medicine is asked for.

Has this made it onto the thread yet?

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/205271-drug-used-bradley-wiggins-should-be-banned-%E2%80%93-david-millar ]Millar commenting on the use of triamcinolone[/url]

Has this made it onto the thread yet?

No. Thought about it though.... 😆

First Swart, now Millar. Are sky getting ready to through Wiggins under the bus?

Thought the bit about weight loss and seeming power increase was interesting (given what else I've posted re this earlier).

First Swart, now Millar. Are sky getting ready to through Wiggins under the bus?

Millar and Wiggins have an on/off history of bitterness and acrimony. Millar slammed Wiggins after he left Garmin to go to Sky. I'm not sure that the two halves of your statement are connected causally. Are they supposed to be?

Swart is Froomes 'independent' tester. Froome and Wiggins have previous.
Millar has previous (and his sister Fran is Sky PR).
If Walsh joins in I'd say someone's card was marked....
So, no, no casual connection. Merely wild speculation which is all part of my weirdness I guess... 😕

And it should be throw obvs.... 😳

What if a rider needed treatment for a sexually transmitted disease or some sort of mental health issue, why should he or she have to disclose that to the world in general?

Also, Froome doesn't have any TUE for his bilharzia treatments so not all medication requires a TUE. What STI drug would trigger?

BadlyWiredDog - Member

What if a rider needed treatment for a sexually transmitted disease or some sort of mental health issue, why should he or she have to disclose that to the world in general?

In theory, it's not to the world in general, just to the authorities. In practice, well.

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/sep/20/sam-quek-fancy-bears-wada-hacking-scandal-hockey-gold-team-gb ]https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/sep/20/sam-quek-fancy-bears-wada-hacking-scandal-hockey-gold-team-gb[/url]

In theory, it's not to the world in general, just to the authorities. In practice, well.

The authorities already know. They have to approve the TUE.

Ah so you were talking about public disclosures? **** that, that's a line that shouldn't be crossed. It's bad enough that WADA can't be trusted to look after info.

Triamcinolone is a catabloic anti-inflammatory corticosteroid, its main use is intra-articular to resolve joint inflammation, or systemically as a long acting potent anti-inflammatory for severe allergic conditions. It is only performance enhancing in the sense of resolving disease, not like an anabolic steroid which may have performance enhancing effects such as muscle development, increased red blood cells (although the evidence for these outside of explosive sports is tenuous). TUEs are used to allow an individual to be treated for a specific condition, and not to then test positive on a random routine tests. If the drug is prohibited during a competition then the withdrawal period for that drug has to be observed, unless special circumstances exist eg local anesthetic to suture a wound mid competition.

Or at least this is how it works in equine sport, where we frequently use TUEs due to the welfare requirement to treat the horse. This is different to a drug on the banned list (never to be used as no real need except performance enhancing), or drugs which have no rational use in a competition other than cheating (tranquiliser in dressage horses) which would not get a TUE. We only use triamcinolone intra-articularly, for equine asthma we follow human guidelines and use injectable dexamethasone, oral prednisolone or inhaled fluticasone.

So TUEs not really an issue in my work, kind of understand why similar human athletes might need treating to keep them on the road.

dickyhepburn, David Millar's take on it [url= http://road.cc/content/news/205271-drug-used-bradley-wiggins-should-be-banned-%E2%80%93-david-millar ]here[/url] is different. Plenty of people are saying how effective corticosteroids are -
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/ -

[i]But the benefits of corticosteroids are documented. Not only in peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts that have demonstrated statistically-significant performance enhancing effects of corticosteroids in endurance sport. But you have also got the testimony from a large number of riders, ex professionals. David Millar’s testimony in his book. Laurent Fignon when he got diagnosed with cancer. Armstrong admitted to the use of corticosteroids. There are probably dozens of others if you went hunting for them.[/i]

I've quoted that article twice in this thread so I realise I'm basing my opinions on something that is just a few other people's take on it all but there looks like enough credibility and experience among them for me to be interested to know what Wiggins or Sky's response might be. tbh I hadn't realised there were PEDs that were notably effective that you could get a TUE for, thought TUEs covered things that may trigger a test fail for trace substances etc but not of real performance significance.

dickyhepburn, David Millar's take on it [url= http://road.cc/content/news/205271-drug-used-bradley-wiggins-should-be-banned-%E2%80%93-david-millar ]here[/url] is different. Plenty of people are saying how effective corticosteroids are -
http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky-tue-controversy-why-one-medical-expert-has-real-concerns/ -

[i]But the benefits of corticosteroids are documented. Not only in peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts that have demonstrated statistically-significant performance enhancing effects of corticosteroids in endurance sport. But you have also got the testimony from a large number of riders, ex professionals. David Millar’s testimony in his book. Laurent Fignon when he got diagnosed with cancer. Armstrong admitted to the use of corticosteroids. There are probably dozens of others if you went hunting for them.[/i]

I've quoted that article twice in this thread so I realise I'm basing my opinions on something that is just a few other people's take on it all but there looks like enough credibility and experience among them for me to be interested to know what Wiggins or Sky's response might be. tbh I hadn't realised there were effective PEDs that you could get a TUE for, thought TUEs covered things that may trigger a test fail for trace substances etc but not of real performance significance.

Swart claims corticosteroids are proven performance enhancers, but doesn't explain how in that article. The Telegraph quoted 3 medical experts who couldn't understand how the drug that Wiggins used would enhance performance; it's a catabolic steroid that [b]reduces[/b] muscle mass.

Remember that Millar also happened to be dosed up on testosterone and EPO. Perhaps that might have something to do with the amazing effects he observed...

Well, I guess it must be on the banned list for [i]some[/i] reason..... 🙄

Corticosteroids do have effects on central nervous system. Kind of "steroid euphoria", insomnia is common...For instance patients taking systemic courses of steroids for asthma/COPD exacerbation are advised to take them in the morning for this reason. Although it's not like taking proper CNS stimulants as amphetamines, I suppose is one of the reasons why they are banned.

I'd put money on not everything being disclosed by the hackers just yet. Imagine there are brown envelopes being couriered to Russia to keep it quiet.

you can imagine anything you like

The reality is it is doe to stop us discussing the state sponsored systematic doping down by the russians which will make everything pale into insignificance

the Russians have been doping? Is that news?

the Russians have been doping? Is that news?

Sick athletes have applied for medical treatments they need and gone through a formal and regulated approval process run by WADA, the UCI, CADF and been granted permission. They've done nothing wrong. Is that news?

It's about time that WADA stopped sitting on its hands and stood up and apologised for its shocking online security, to the athletes who are being hounded by the media for doing nothing wrong or illegal and, above all, stood up for the robustness of its own processes.

If you genuinely believe that athletes have been using TUEs to obtain performance enhancing drugs, then there must be something badly wrong with the system that approves those applications. But as far as I can see, WADA just sits there and says pretty much nothing.

Would the most important potentially important benefit be in reducing inflammation caused by the day in/day out attritional riding in a long stage race?

Certainly the effects are known to last a week or more in patients, which could be useful in keeping joint aches at bay and assist recovery well into a grand tour.

I agree that the athletes have not done anything wrong under the letter of the law, but perhaps the authorities need to look at some of these medications and decide whether a corticosteroid jab is appropriate for allergic rhinitis.

[quote=fourbanger ]the Russians have been doping? Is that news?

Not really but you are clutching at straws with TUEs and ignoring the massive elephant in the room which is slowly releasing you the information that folk legitimately got TUEs.

We knew that anyway and its not cheating as they have exemptions.

We could discuss this process if you like as we ignore the big state sponsored cheating the leak is designed to get us to ignore.

I don't think anybody is questioning or ignoring the stated sponsored doping in Russia.

We are, however, questioning the [i]legitimacy[/i] of the TUEs though. It's historic misuse is also documented, so don't go [i]ignoring[/i] that. Legalised doping is an accurate enough description. And 'ignoring' Russian misdeeds has absolutely nothing to do with it (unless they have a slew of TUEs too). You can keep banging on about if you want but it doesn't stop us considering that maybe other countries aren't exactly whiter than white. Whether it's individuals who are permitted to cheat, or whole organisations, the results are similar. Dopers.

State sponsored doping takes many forms and has not been limited to just Russia.

Whether it's individuals who are permitted to cheat, or whole organisations, the results are similar. Dopers.

So what do you think should be done? Ban TUEs? Change the criteria for approving them? Revise the list of permissible treatments under TUEs?

The trouble is, if you start off from the binary position that cheating is endemic in professional cycling and no-one is innocent then you end up with a scenario where instead of the cycling organisations and teams working to make the sport as clean as possible, they spend time and energy defending pretty much anything they do. Because under that sort of black and white thinking, no amount of transparency or scrutiny or testing is ever enough. Because they are automatically guilty.

That's not the same thing as saying everyone is blameless, because that's also clearly not true, but there's a sort of irrational hysteria around TUEs that they probably don't merit.

The reason that systematised Russian state doping is being mentioned is not because it proves that the TUE system is perfect, but because it puts it in some sort of perspective. What's a shame is that the media is effectively dancing to the tune of a bunch of anonymous hackers with its own agenda rather than actually looking at TUEs objectively.

We are, however, questioning the legitimacy of the TUEs though. It's historic misuse is also documented, so don't go ignoring that.

You're not 'questioning' you're asserting, you've already made your mind up, no? And what happened in the past may not be the same as what's happening now. And in any case, if the system is questionable, who's at fault? You'd hope that it would be designed to make misuse of TUEs impossible. If it doesn't, then clearly it needs looking at.

But here's the thing, none of the media reports I've seen have questioned WADA and the UCI's administration of that system, instead they'd rather smear teams and athletes who've abided by TUE rules and regulations. If the system's broken, something should be done about it. And if it's not, WADA needs to step up and say so as well as sorting out their security so that athlete's private records aren't released randomly to the media.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Just asserting that 'they're all dopers' on the other hand, because they always have been is maybe a little simplistic. Are TUEs broken? I don't know. You don't know. But no-one seems particularly interested in standing up for the process or finding out.

Badly Wired Dog wins today's voice of reason award.

Indeed they do

Oh, and I'd just like to echo the comments above that there's not much medical evidence being thrown around for/against corticosteriods as PEDs. Whilst Millar's and Jaskche's comments are very persuasive, they're clearly from a subjective point of view.

So what do you think should be done? [s]Ban TUEs?[/s] Change the criteria for approving them? Revise the list of permissible treatments under TUEs?

The trouble is, if you start off from the binary position that cheating wa[s]i[/s]s endemic in professional cycling

you end up with a [s]scenario[/s]situation where instead of the cycling organisations and teams working to make the sport as clean as possible, they spend time and energy defending pretty much anything they do

That's not the same thing as saying everyone is blameless, because that's also clearly not true,

there's a sort of irrational hysteria around TUEs that they probably don't merit.

You're not 'questioning' you're asserting, you've already made your mind up, no?

And what happened in the past may not be the same as what's happening now. And in any case, if the system is questionable, who's at fault? You'd hope that it would be designed to make misuse of TUEs impossible. If it doesn't, [b]then clearly it needs looking at[/b].

The problem is that the system was clearly not up to scratch (see LA, Landis, Hamilton revelations) and not fit for purpose. I saw the UCI defending LA and not treating it with any kind of sense of morality. Cookson hasn't exactly upturned the applecart.

That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Just asserting that 'they're all dopers' on the other hand, because they always have been is maybe a little simplistic. Are TUEs broken? I don't know. You don't know. But no-one seems particularly interested in standing up for the process or finding out.

I've never said they are [b]all[/b] dopers, I've questioned whether [i]some[/i] are as I can't explain their transformations by any other rational means (bearing in mind the revelations previously cited). The UCI and WADA don't seem to be addressing the issues (its their job). Ashenden admitted that WADA was clueless to microdosing until Landis told them how it was done! He left because of the gagging clauses in his contract. hardly transparent...

However, all this said, thanks for engaging in rational debate BWD (and addressing the issues full on). I understand your point of view (and frustration) it's just I've personally stopped giving cycling organisations the benefit of the doubt...

Its not the bad old days, but its not the bright new future either.

Wiggo's going on Andrew Marr on Sunday to give his side of the story.

He's taking some stick for not talking to a cycling journalist, who might be able to offer more pertinent questions.

Going by past history, I'd say cycling journalists are less likely to ask pertinent questions. Very few of them are really digging into things in a rigorous, evidence backed manner.

No reason why Andrew Marr can't do a good job if he does his homework.

Good point kcr, cycling journalists have been accused of being complicit in the omerta as, for example, accusing LA of doping was a quick way to not getting an interview (cf Paul Kimmage).

David Walsh might have at thing or 2 to say about complicity..

David Walsh might have at thing or 2 to say about complicity..

😉

Spartacus and Nino in the latest 'hack'

Oh and Steve Cummings.

No reason why Andrew Marr can't do a good job if he does his homework.

Absolutely. Any gripes may be because Wiggo's ignored all their requests for comments and gone to the BBC.

Oh and Steve Cummings.

He was allowed to use an asthma inhaler for 12 months back in 2008.

How does he sleep at night?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/23/bradley-wiggins-doping-rules-fancy-bears-tues

How does he sleep at night?

Soundly, because he's treated his asthma.