Wiggins has asthma so can have asthma drugs to help him breathe. Seem fair.
I'm a bit fat, so can I have drugs to reduce my weight and help me climb?
TUEs for acute conditions seems fair, but for chronic conditions? I'm not so sure. It's a bit like saying "these are the world's finest athletes - proved they get their asthma drugs. Without them they're still pretty good, but not quite so good..."
However rules are rules and I guess you either break them or you don't.
[quote=rosscore ]So the state sponsored funding derived from moron tax and lavished on the sport system how many millions is it? Not necessarily on the likes of Wiggins, but in all other high level sports. Compare that to how say Steve Peat was funded and where's his knighthood?
So you're now equating all the lottery funded sporting programmes doing things totally legally with the Russian state sponsored doping, and you think the hackers are on the side of the good guys?
Well whatever your arguments I have to say I'm just disappointed I guess, I really did think he was clean and Sky had cleaned things up, clearly I was wrong along with millions of others who will also be disappointed.
Asthma can kill you, particularly when brought on by exertion.
and you think the hackers are on the side of the good guys?
And what about the UCI, which side are they on? Because I'm honestly not sure...
Plus, this isn't good guys/bad guys it bad guys and ****-ing seriously bad guys 😉
igm - Member
However rules are rules and I guess you either break them or you don't.
As already said, this is the actual nub of the situation. As far as we know at the moment, Wiggins/Sky acted within the current rules.
Their handling of things since the leak could have been better, and Brailsford is vaguely making all the right noises about the future (while - at least from the short clip I saw on the BBC this morning - trying to avoid talking about the past).
I guess your sense of anger/disappointment/resignation depends on your ethical rather than 'legal' viewpoint.
Personally, I was always pretty clear that whatever they said, Sky were obviously going to do everything they could within the rules to gain any advantage and sometimes that's something to be applauded (compare with F1 designers who are lauded for spotting and exploiting loopholes), and sometimes something to be concerned about. With the current situation, I'm disappointed in their public responses but equally would love some hard and fast evidence (not ex-dopers subjective opinions) about the actual benefits or otherwise of the substances involved.
Asthma can kill you, particularly when brought on by exertion.
Then if you suffer that badly maybe don't ride 2500+ miles around France in three weeks?
breatheeasy - MemberAsthma can kill you, particularly when brought on by exertion.
Then if you suffer that badly maybe don't ride 2500+ miles around France in three weeks?
Well that's easy for you to say with your username.
It was his job though.
[quote=BadlyWiredDog ]Question
Who's diagnosing the conditions and prescribing the meds?
Sympathetic team doctors or completely impartial outsiders?
The way it's been described, it was a combination of a team doctor seeking advice from an independent specialist after being approached by the rider for help with a medical condition. And then the recommendation was approved by the UCI?
One of the reasons that the process isn't as transparent as people would seem to want it to be is medical confidentiality. Just as you have the right for your GP not to tell your employer, friends, the press, the police, Fred next door about your medical conditions, complaints and history, doctors are duty bound not to disclose medical details without the rider's permission.
Hence, I guess, why Brailsford talked about changing team Sky's TUE policy so that riders have to consent to the disclosure of TUEs. I guess, in theory at least, it's possible that the only people on the team to know about the Wiggins TUE would be the medicall staff and Wiggins himself.
So surely the logical way to remove doubt is to only have 100% impartial doctors or medical professionals treat and diagnose any conditions that require a TUE. It's absolutely not outwith the realms of possibility that a team doctor is not impartial, is open to influence and pressure and could provide a false diagnosis and recommended treatment
So surely the logical way to remove doubt is to only have 100% impartial doctors or medical professionals treat and diagnose any conditions that require a TUE. It's absolutely not outwith the realms of possibility that a team doctor is not impartial, is open to influence and pressure and could provide a false diagnosis and recommended treatment
In an ideal world, all medics are impartial, it's part of medical ethics, their prime directive is the health of the patient, no? The world's not perfect, but what it really comes down to, if you think the system currently sucks and allows corrupt medics to twist it, is basically that WADA and the UCI should reform it so that it's beyond reproach.
It's appalling that, as far as I can tell, neither has come out in support of the robustness of their own system. Pat Mcquaid is even daft enough to infer that Wiggins was cheating a system that he was in charge of ffs. Instead they've left the teams and the athletes to carry the can both for their fallible online security and the doubts raised about the TUE system which they are responsible for.
People are reading Chris Frome's [url= https://twitter.com/chrisfroome ]statement[/url] as a veiled crack at Wiggins, but actually it seems more like a call for WADA and the UCI to take some bloody responsibility for their own regulations and the potential that they could be abused.
People seem more obsessed with somehow proving that Team Sky is bent than actually looking at the whole picture.
Apparently TUE applications in tennis are processed anonymously so the panel never knows who the athlete actually is. That seems like a pretty good idea if you're concerned about selective approval.
Non story 🙄
I've watched Bradley and Dave interviews ..
I'm a GP, up to date docs haven't used Triamcinolone for allergies for 15 years or more.
This stinks... May be not wiggo, but unimpressed by the docs.
In an ideal world, all medics are impartial, it's part of medical ethics
[img] 
[/img]
Sky/BC can talk up the 'marginal gains' thing if it's just nice fluffy stuff such as a team bus, taking your pillow with you, special wheels/bike etc. - when the marginal gains are potentially what medication could we possibly get away with I don't think they can stand up and say that out loud so it makes the excuses maybe a little more convoluted.
The 'enables me to compete on a level playing field' type excuse - wasn't that almost everyones excuse in the past why they 'had' to do the nasty stuff.
But in the end of the day, it's all legit, if the UCI say it's okay to take then its okay. Any issues with that really should be posted to the UCI/WADA rather than directed at Wiggins/Sky. Just another example of not flying too close to the sun ain't it?
I'm a GP, up to date docs haven't used Triamcinolone for allergies for 15 years or more.
Actually, thats an interesting thing - if you move from mainstream GP-ism into sport science/team doctoring do you have to keep up to date? Obviously I'd like to think you'd have to keep yourself versed in latest practices etc. but do you fall back to your tried and tested remedies (as long as they aren't on the banned list) from many moons ago?
"It is a fundamental human right that personal medical information be kept confidential," the agency said in a statement. "Nobody would want such information disclosed, let alone for it to be debated publicly.
Says WADA on cyclingnews.com - good job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet...
I also think trying to Linch Wiggo / Team SKY is unfair, and I'm sure most on here will be able to fathom that Old Bradders wasn't the only one trying to level out the playing field, I'm sure there's others that have been doing their own jiggery pokery with the banned substance list, TUE's and team Doctors, UCI doctors and any other Doctor.
The pic above of Ferrari is quite apt and tells anyone and everyone who needs to know that rules or no rules, human nature will instinctively bow out to greed and money.
I'm also in the pissed off camp, quietly admiring Team SKY and what they stood for, I've often found myself in conversation trying to portray the Sport of Cycling being as clean now as it ever has been and whilst it probably is I can't help but think it was all a bit of a scam, No Needles and biodiversity eating trying to stay away from Growth hormones in meats whilst jabbing your Arse cheek with an illegal banned / approved med.
I'd also like to say tough shit, yes it's his job Cycling round France for 3 weeks a year, if you have difficulty breathing find another job, imagine turning up for work as a Fireman and being scared of confined spaces or hights or being Asthmatic, in a respirator, in a tight space whilst another persons life depended on it. Then trying to make it better by stating "well it's all he ever wanted to do" it's his God given right. It's not, if you can't do it by means of being naturally fit and athletic it's your body's way of telling you that you can't do it. It seems fairly straightforward to me but I'm sure there's plenty who think he should take substances to bring him up to a naturally fit individual persons standard.
Maybe we should have the olympics, Paralympics and those with Asthma?
That should level out the playing field, they could have sticky inhalers handed out of the team cars and that way those with breathing difficulties who are life long sufferers of Asthma can all compete in the same races.
Surely that's a lot fairer than injecting corticosteroids into muscle tissue,
AH victim blaming now- their fault someone broke the law etcgood job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet..
[quote=xyeti ]Surely that's a lot fairer than injecting corticosteroids into muscle tissue,Wiggins hasn't had any injections, remember?
In his 2012 book My Time, Wiggins said he had "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".
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.
*not at all surprised.
Does anyone know how much of this substance riders were using in 'the bad old days'?
AH victim blaming now- their fault someone broke the law etc
It's possible to note the irony in an organisation which has failed to keep medical records confidential making a statement saying that medical confidentiality is 'a fundamental human right' without it being 'victim blaming'.
Beside, the victims here aren't WADA, they're athletes who haven't done anything wrong who are being smeared by the media for no genuine reason. Like Steve Cummings who had a TUE in 2008 I think, for an inhaler, which is not even on the banned list now.
Ah yes, that's my fault, I forgot he had gone on record and published a book in which he claimed "NO Needles"
I'm glad I didn't buy it........
It's possible to note the irony in an organisation which has failed to keep medical records confidential making a statement saying that medical confidentiality is 'a fundamental human right' without it being 'victim blaming'.
apologies i mistook this as you having a go and blaming them
good job they're so committed to keeping medical records confidential that no-one could ever hack into their data and publish it on the internet..
Clearly WADA are a victim of the hack clearly the athletes are victims of what was hacked
Reputations are being tarnished
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.
Looked like a classic piece of (crisis) corporate comms in play - find a friendly interviewer and present a series of prepared comments (well in this case) in attempt to move the narrative on
Brad was remarkably composed and articulate - almost as if the whole thing had been rehearsed.
Yep its the lying in the book that makes Wiggo look bad. Suprised* Marr didn't pin him on that.*not at all surprised.
Does anyone know how much of this substance riders were using in 'the bad old days'?
I imagine they used more effective substances since they didn't have to bother with the TUE rigmarole.
Reputations are being tarnished
WADA's reputation for keeping medical records confidential has certainly been tarnished
So after 8 pages, basically there's no evidence whatsoever that Wiggins' treatment was anything other than 100% by the book, no one has explained how he would get a performance enhancement from triamcinolone, and lots of people are very upset that he lied in his book.
Having seen the storm that's blown up over this, is anyone [i]really[/i] shocked that he didn't reveal his use of TUE injections in his book? I can't say I'm surprised he kept that quiet, because he would still have had to deal with most of this even if he'd been honest!
I've been utterly sceptical about pro cycling ever since my last cycling hero, Robert Millar, tested positive in '91, but this TUE stuff is no smoking gun.
[quote=kcr ]Having seen the storm that's blown up over this, is anyone really shocked that he didn't reveal his use of TUE injections in his book? I can't say I'm surprised he kept that quiet, because he would still have had to deal with most of this even if he'd been honest![img] 
[/img]
KCR, Lance Armstrong was a pretty heavy user, so either he had Asthma as well or he used it to slow him down, quite why he or Millar or Wiggo would inject it knowing full well that it had no benefit to performance is beyond even my rationale, why is it people don't want to believe it's enhanced performance.
And I think we all get it, he's done nothing wrong by the letter of the law but I don't work to the UCI's guidelines like the top Pro teams do, I have to rely on my morale compass to decipher what's right and what's not.
A bit like Google et al not paying Tax, they've done nothing wrong and are earning more for the fat cats who invested and who sit on the board. It's all above board and legit but it sticks in the throat a bit.
Kcr
There is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing and that the drug is a very unusual treatment for asthma usually only given to people in hospital who are very unwell and if Wiggins was so unwell as to need it he shouldn't have been racing
Wouldn't it just save us a lot of time by saying that roadies at the professional level are cheats...
Lets just concentrate on the muddy side of the sport and leave the doping to the lycra lovers....
kcr: best get and touch with the UCI and WADA and get them to remove it from their banned list. It obviously does nothing...
Probably get them to exonerate Lance (again) as well while you're at it.... 😉
Oh and what happened to Sky's we'd pull a rider rather than get them a TUE policy that they started off with, eh?
There is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing
Great, that's what I've been looking for. How does it work?
Probably get them to exonerate Lance (again) as well while you're at it....
That's worth posting again for everyone to enjoy!
As I said before, I'm not suggesting that the drug is not performance enhancing. I'm saying I haven't seen evidence of that, or an explanation of how it would work.
kcr - Member - QuoteThere is plenty of evidence that it was performance enhancing
Great, that's what I've been looking for. How does it work?
[img] 
[/img]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corticosteroid
I think that one of the problems of this thread is that people have different interpretations of the word 'evidence'.
I think that one of the problems of this thread is that people have different interpretations of the word 'cheating'
A piece on this over at [url= http://inrng.com/2016/09/wiggins-tue-sday/ ]inrng[/url].
His comment re Kenacort...
Kenacort rings alarm bells. This and other cortisone-related medicines have an anti-inflammatory response but they have a performance enhancing effect. It’s been the choice of dopers for decades: Bernard Thevenet said he used it on his way to winning the Tour de France twice in the 1970s, Laurent Fignon admitted to using it in the 1980s, Lance Armstrong should have been banned for using it in the 1990s, the late Philippe Gaumont used it in the 2000s and in UCI’s CIRC report cited its use in this decade. The point here isn’t to name users but to show how far it goes back and for every name cited they were surely hundreds of contemporary Kenacort consumers. So our starting point with this substance has more baggage than the Samsonite factory.
Ok, no one has yet to post a scientific paper detailing the specific performance enhancement benefits of corticosteroid, but given how heavily it's been abused in the past and the decades worth of anecdotal evidence out there, I'm pretty convinced it does more than just put you back on a level playing field.
The problem here is that Wiggins has used something LEGALLY that dopers have said they used to great effect. He's also never mentioned in hundreds of interviews, a book etc that he was sufficiently ill before three separate grand tours (but none before then) that he needed what is quite a serious treatment for pollen allergies. All the evidence from the time indicates he was in the form of his life, winning other stage races despite suffering from terrible allergies that left him at a significant disadvantage to his competitors. For one of the stage races he requested the TUE but only used it before the TdF and in another instance had the TUE signed off before a medical examination.
On balance, given the above, it feels more like he, some doctors and quite possibly his team management abused a pre-existing but not severe condition in order to gain SOMETHING. Whether you agree it's as performance enhancing as those who have used it is besides the point, something smells fishy.
Marginal gainz.
Innit,
pushing the boundaries but NEVER crossing them.
Atlaz, arggghhh
xyeti, reckon you have about the sum of it
No smoking gun? Yes absolutely, Armstrongs doping stems from the Atlanta Olympics, through Seven Up and well into USPS.
Sky is far to dominant IMHO. As is the GB track team. But, Im not saying they are doping, I am just saying that the trail of 'activity' is very similar.
It is laughable to believe Wiggins is so poorly he needs this kicker pre every grand tour, please dont tell me he was at a disadvantage without it otherwise he would have been in the same boat for the Olympics. Or did he have this injection for the Olympics too to ensure he was not at a disadvantage?
Wiggins "Drugs put me on a level playing field"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/27/chris-froome-demands-uci-and-wada-address-abuse-of-tue-system/
Id be down for some of that, could have won loads of races had I known. 🙄
Atlaz and fourbanger have it spot on, but in my opinion the instruction would of come from Brailsford. If he thought it would give even half a percent advantage it would be done. Fits right in with his marginal gains mantra.
My word, strong and admireable words from Froome,
On balance, given the above, it feels more like he, some doctors and quite possibly his team management abused a pre-existing but not severe condition in order to gain SOMETHING. Whether you agree it's as performance enhancing as those who have used it is besides the point, something smells fishy.
Well put.
Wiggo's tarnished now and will stay that way, more for his economy with the truth than for the TUE itself.
That doesn't mean he was definitely working the system, but taken alongside Brailsford's previous comment about going right up to the edge of the rules - it does look suspicious.
So I repeat - did Froome have this in mind when he declared that his 2013 TdF win will "stand the test of time"?
