I don't think there can be any doubt that cortisone or equivalents are performance enhancing in the context of recovery and control of inflammation over a longer stage race. The only people who fully understand the motivation for the unusual decision to prescribe injections which can have unwanted side-effects for a relatively trivial condition are Sky's medical team.
Either way it's covered by TUE and is entirely legal. In my mind it certainly puts a taint on Wiggins and Sky, and the UCI/WADA should be reviewing the TUE scheme to remove this drug, or at least change the nature of its allowed use. If Wiggins was sufficiently unwell to merit getting this drug shortly before one of the most demanding races in the calendar, he shouldn't have been on the start line.
the UCI/WADA should be reviewing the TUE scheme to remove this drug, or at least change the nature of its allowed use.
Good luck with that one, both WADA and the UCI seem oddly reluctant to take any responsibility for the process at all. As far as I can see, WADA hasn't actually said very much at all about its own system, let alone defend it.
The 'statement' on cyclingnews.com is actually a verbatim cut and paste job from WADA's FAQs. So much for holier than thou journalists eh.
lots of people are very upset that he lied in his book.
But he's explained that, the book was written by a ghost writer who just made that sort of stuff up and he was too busy to proof read the book to check that what was written was true. 8)
I'd love to hear what Lizzie Armistead has to say about it all, given that Wiggo was all 'holier than thee' at the Olympics.....
I'd love to hear what Lizzie Armistead has to say about it all, given that Wiggo was all 'holier than thee' at the Olympics.....
He probably doesnt recall what it was he said as someone else told him what to say and anyway he was banged out of his head on anti-asthma juice 😆
So how about a system where TUEs are fine but you can't compete for X weeks after one - X might vary by drug.
So how about a system where TUEs are fine but you can't compete for X weeks after one - X might vary by drug.
Yes, that would make sense. You treat someone's medical condition so that they're well enough to compete and then stop them from competing... 🙄
Why not just have a system where impartial medics decide whether the use of an appropriate medication is justifiable taking into account any potential performance boosting properties beyond restoration to a notional normal baseline?
The whole thing revolves around the robustness of the process. If it's not convincing as is, it needs to be tightened up. Isn't that obvious. The alternative is to simply get rid and let athletes stick to non-listed medication only.
The trouble is that most of the people doing the 'judging' here are either armchair enthusiasts convinced that all pro cyclists are pretty much tainted / ex-dopers trying to paint the current situation in the tinted light of their own past / journalists who are desperate to create a controversy / Team Sky haters, who would regard anything that team did as evidence that they are evil, depraved, child-eating aliens / trolls.
Somewhere in the middle of all this, there's the kernel of something that does need to be addressed, but trying to argue that TUEs, even ones that seem dubious, are even close to the excesses of the Armstrong era is just disproportionate and stops the real issues being looked at.
The most depressing thing of all is watching cycling determinedly trying to eat itself and make itself as unattractive a sport as possible to sponsors, supporters, the general public, the media and anyone else who looks in from the outside at the whole sorry business.
BadlyWiredDog, you say up above that "The whole thing revolves around the robustness of the process"
Can't we just get back to the robustness of the athletes involved, that way we wouldn't need to treat those that are feeling under the weather and at a disadvantage? Or is it just me that thinks if your career is Cardio Vascular sports and you have a breathing disorder? Then choose something a bit less vigorous or compete at a lower level.
BWD - I think I'm thinking about the difference between chronic conditions where athletes can not compete at the highest level unless they are receiving potentially performance enhancing drugs, and an acute condition where a PED is given briefly to sort a problem. In neither case am I thinking about non-PEDs like inhalers for asthma.
In the former case they are not the best in the world without the PED - whether someone makes comments about returning to a level playing field or not - so I see no problem with saying you can not compete while you are on these substances.
In the latter, they are simply recovering from a condition with the assistance of some drug which they will not need once they recover. Again no problem with preventing competition while they are on the drug.
What's wrong with that?
The trouble is that most of the people doing the 'judging' here are either armchair enthusiasts convinced that all pro cyclists are pretty much tainted / ex-dopers trying to paint the current situation in the tinted light of their own past / journalists who are desperate to create a controversy / Team Sky haters, who would regard anything that team did as evidence that they are evil, depraved, child-eating aliens / trolls.
sadly this sums up this entire thread. 🙁
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off, and why they're releasing this data of people following the rules.
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off
Wiggo and his lack of ethics?
BWD - I think I'm thinking about the difference between chronic conditions where athletes can not compete at the highest level unless they are receiving potentially performance enhancing drugs, and an acute condition where a PED is given briefly to sort a problem. In neither case am I thinking about non-PEDs like inhalers for asthma.In the former case they are not the best in the world without the PED - whether someone makes comments about returning to a level playing field or not - so I see no problem with saying you can not compete while you are on these substances.
In the latter, they are simply recovering from a condition with the assistance of some drug which they will not need once they recover. Again no problem with preventing competition while they are on the drug.
What's wrong with that?
I would say that if someone has a chronic condition that stops them competing to their full potential and there's a medical solution available that will allow them to do that, but[b] without giving them a further unfair advantage[/b], then allowing them access to that seems reasonable and compassionate.
The TUE system, if it's fit for purpose, should do that. I realise it's a fine line, but that's why you have an approval process by qualified medical experts. That should mean that athletes who apply both have a genuine medical need and that the treatment requested won't enhance their performance and is appropriate to that need.
If the process works properly it should do that. If it doesn't do that, it needs fixing. Either procedurally or by excluding some treatments/drugs altogether.
To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16, which suggests that whatever the situation was in the past, it's somewhat different now.
The situation will be different now. You used to need TUEs for inhalers, but not any more, and WADA says you don't need to bother with all the TUE stuff when you're taking the stuff, you can wait until you get popped on a test and then apply for it retrospectively.
Damn, more journos sensationalising and stirring the pot.
Or maybe just more haterz.
Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the 'hard' questions, isn't it...
Funny how Brailsford always dodges answering the 'hard' questions, isn't it...
He's very good at deflecting negative questions, even when relating to issues like Sky mucking up in a race.
But he must realise this one is beyond him and Sky are currently getting all their ducks in a row, so to speak.
My guess is Wiggo did have asthma or allergies and they spotted an opportunity for a co-incidental marginal gain, maybe not even thinking they were being unethical. And that they're now frantically drawing up new policies.
He is very good at deflecting the questions, he's good at looking forward, moving on when in actual fact you want questions answered to something that's already happened not what's going to happen.
Anyway, i'll just leave this here.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/07/news/frustrating-end-for-vaughters_1265
Don't forget also who started this whole thing off, and why they're releasing this data of people [s]following[/s] gaming the rules.
😉
Calum Skinner
Still following the rules - if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn't get the advantage they wanted that way.
I want to prove to people my asthma is real
Apparently it is a very simple test that can be done, and is used in hospitals a lot.
They give you something to inhale which if you have Asthma will make your airways restrict, so it should be simple enough to test all pro cyclists
Still following the rules - if the Russians wanted to do that they could have, but apparently they didn't get the advantage they wanted that way.
If you dope legally then its not cheating? Even if you lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn't cheating?
What is it then?
lie/exaggerate about your condition to get the legal exemption, that isn't cheating?
So regarding Wiggins where's your proof he's lied or exaggerated about his condition ? Thing is you don't have any do you. For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.
I am an fairly ethical person. But if my whole life/career was based around winning cycle races I would be doing what I could within the rules to give me the best chances possible.
If you have a problem with the system then change the system so the rather grey area of ethics is no longer part of it.
So regarding Wiggins where's your proof he's lied or exaggerated about his condition ?
It was a rhetorical question. Seems you boys don't care if it wasn't done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we're all cleanz now...
Here's another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?
in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here's a clue on this one: USADA posted the reasoned document.
Thing is you don't have any <proof> do you
Couple of weeks ago we didn't know he had 'dodgy' TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next 😀
For some reason it just suits you to believe that Wiggins and Sky are cheats.
Because I don't believe them, I've covered this before. I have no other rational explanation for them coming from nowhere to winning 4 out of the last 5 TdF's. I don't believe the marginal gains bollocks, it pretty much always ends up being the same old same old...
Here's another though, where was the proof for Lance Armstrong?in 1999?
in 2005?
in 2009?
in 2012? here's a clue on this on: USADA posted the reasoned document.
So you're saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn't tested positive yet? 😕
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/now-we-understand-why-team-sky-never-joined-says-mpcc-doctor/
To be fair, neither did a few other top teams. For anyone wanting more on MPCC these articles are worth a read in this order...
http://inrng.com/2013/02/the-mpcc-explained/
http://inrng.com/2015/02/in-praise-of-the-mpcc/
http://inrng.com/2016/02/mpcc-exodus/
http://inrng.com/2015/06/abolish-the-mpcc/
So you're saying that basically any pro cyclist is simply a doper who hasn't tested positive yet?
No, I'm saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, its a ****-ing duck!
Couple of weeks ago we didn't know he had 'dodgy' TUEs did we? Who knows what might turn up next 😀
But there's nothing dodgy about it, all legal and completely within the rules. Maybe something else more damming will come up, I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!
No, I'm saying if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, its a ****-ing duck!
So just the successful ones then, not the slower guys? So Quinatna, Nibali, Contador? Are they doping do you think? Or just the Brits.
The ones that make sudden and unexplained improvements, [i]them[/i].
I don't really care what nationality they are.
Its the obvious ones and Froome especially to me looks obvious.
I also think Sagan's on the sauce. But at least he's entertaining (on a bike)... 
I hope not but you seem positively gleeful at the prospect !!
<rhetorical question>If a doper was exposed, would you not be happy of that fact? </rhetorical question>
Me, personally, I'm gleeful if dopers are exposed.
This thread is no place for a reasonable person. Or even me.
To put this all in perspective, the number of TUEs issued to elite cyclists in 2016 is, from memory only 15 or 16
UCI website lists 13 TUEs "granted by the UCI" for 2015,
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
but I don't think this is all TUEs.
According to the UCI "If you are included in the UCI RTP (registered testing pool), you must apply for a TUE directly to the UCI through ADAMS exclusively."
The website also points out that approved national anti doping agencies can issue TUEs, and these are automatically recognised by the UCI.
You can see who is in the RTP and the selection criteria here:
http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/international-registered-testing-pool-uci-rtp/
The RTP selection criteria for road is professional men and top ranked women, and for track it is "top ranked riders".
The prominent UK road men seem to be in the RTP, but there are a number of Olympic trackies who don't appear there.
So my interpretation of the situation is that 13 elite riders in the RTP applied through the UCI for a TUE, but there is an unknown number of non RTP riders with NADO issued TUEs.
I'm surprised there were only 13 UCI TUEs for the elite testing pool in 2015, even for legitimate treatment. If the system is seriously broken, I would also have expected to see a lot more people taking advantage of it.
Seems you boys don't care if it wasn't done for medical reasons or not; it was legal so, crack on, we're all cleanz now...
I brought up the legality at this point in the thread, and the purpose of doing so was simply to contrast with the actions of the paymasters of those who released the data. I've refrained from giving any judgements on anybody who's medical records have been released by the hackers, and will continue to do so. TBH I don't even like contrasting the two, because they're completely non comparable.
Though I'll simply point out that if it is legal then it isn't doping - in the same way drinking coffee isn't doping.
Thought caffeine was limited
Yeah, Lance used to drink coffee...nudge nudge etc no smoke without fire etc 😉
Is coffee a banned substance?
Is coffee a banned substance?
Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while...
Late '80s iirc.
It's also what Contador and his training chums were drinking when Froome and his mate Ritchie Porte were doing all that extra training (after switching off their power meters of course) above and beyond that carefully crafted Boffin prepared marginal gains training plan from Sky.
I've read some historical posts on this forum regards doping, Meds and mechanical.
There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don't actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there's nothing to prove or to be proved.
It looks like what most of us on here are disagreeing with is the morale high ground, who thinks it's acceptable and who thinks it's unethical. It's not an argument as such but it boils down to what we believe in.
I personally believe if he has asthma he should compete with it or stop racing at that level at least, and there are those who believe he should do everything within the rules to assist him.
It's not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.
There seemed to be a lot of hate towards those who even suggested mechanical doping was an option, and there appears to be a lot of well educated folks on here, some none believers questioned the application of such a device, how would it work, where does the power come from. There were a lot of claims at that time for evidence just like there is now. Although we don't actually need evidence because in practice there has been no crime committed, there's nothing to prove or to be proved.
The stuff with mechanical was more that we know how it exists and when you put a motor in what sort of power source you need etc. but when we got stuff lile the magic spinning wheel that wasn't etc (The organisers checked the bike) and the idea of motors powerful enough to hide in hubs with no mechanical or electrical signatures people were rightly very sketical.
back to the TUE
It's not really for us to decide, we can only pass judgement if you like, rightly or wrongly.
Judgement and rules, compete within them, if the rules are bad fix the rules.
The other option is to start letting off smoke bombs and telling everyone that there is no smoke without fire and insisting that there must be something else going on. People bring a colclusion to a discussion a bit too often. Bring facts to the table then work out whats going on.
The one thing about the overarching conspiracy aspect is that how do the people in charge decide who to give the magic juice to?
I think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might 'cheat'. I got drunk with a guy from Trek in 2002 (I recall) in Pau, we argued the night away about Lance, he was infuriated I couldn't believe he was clean. We both ended up with egg on our faces as I was a huge Ullrich/Miller fan.
Edit. My point is that US cycling fans saw Lance as a legend in the making, infallible and brilliant. In fact he was the opposite. Most Brits hold Sky in the same manner.
I simply cannot see how the entire Sky team can sit on the front and pretty much neutralise a 23 stage race. We now know that Wiggins was not up to the task unless the playing field was balanced - his exact words, through medicine, this is fundamentally wrong.
If he is not up to it, he should not be 're-created' to be up to it.
Believe it or not caffeine was actually a banned substance for a while..
As I recall some riders would slip a 'pre-lubed' caffeine suppositry in as they got towards the end of a stage, to give them a boost for the sprint 😯
think that most Brits dont want to believe Sky might 'cheat'. I got drunk with a guy from Trek
Got pissed with a sky rider so pissed off with people deciding he was a drug cheat for no other reason than they were winning...
New Wiggins interview in the Guardian;
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues ]Link[/url]
