Wiggins TUEs: Froome says questions remain while Cavendish sits on the fence

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

So... who is everyone's beef with here? Is it Wiggins, is it the UCI, or is it team Sky? For me, the TUE applied for was a sensible, no chance of fuck up treatment... with the added benefit that it might shed a bit of extra weight as well. This was then accepted by the UCI, TUE granted and the relevant grand tour won. We can argue the toss about levels of performance gains and everything else forever, but what do you think should be done? Wiggins and Sky were within the rules, so no matter how loud and long you shout, no tour wins are going to be taken away, so what, what do you actually want? Is it TUE reform, is it Wiggins / Team sky's head on a stake? All this talk of what did or didn't happen, what effect did or didn't come of it is just pissing in the wind. What is the answer... is there an answer, or should I just start a helmet thread somewhere?

As to the UCI: Zorzoli's out, a three doctor panel has been established. A stricter TUE policy and a Cortisol test seem to be useful steps, and things are pointing in that direction. Celerity in this regard would be welcome but I do not find it to be essential. But I speak for myself.

As to Sky/Wiggins: Contrition and transparency. But we're obviously not getting that. Neither are we getting Wiggins maillot rescinded, nor would I want it personally. Way too harsh, ceteris paribus. Though if you want to get technical if evidence surfaces that the Kenacort prescription was in fact a sham we actually legally should get that teddy lion repossessed. But as we stand, until we do get some semblance of forthright remorse, yep, we're just pissing into the wind. Trying to get the angle right, though. Spelling out "hypocrites" in the driven snow, if you will.

Carton wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

So... who is everyone's beef with here? Is it Wiggins, is it the UCI, or is it team Sky? For me, the TUE applied for was a sensible, no chance of fuck up treatment... with the added benefit that it might shed a bit of extra weight as well. This was then accepted by the UCI, TUE granted and the relevant grand tour won. We can argue the toss about levels of performance gains and everything else forever, but what do you think should be done? Wiggins and Sky were within the rules, so no matter how loud and long you shout, no tour wins are going to be taken away, so what, what do you actually want? Is it TUE reform, is it Wiggins / Team sky's head on a stake? All this talk of what did or didn't happen, what effect did or didn't come of it is just pissing in the wind. What is the answer... is there an answer, or should I just start a helmet thread somewhere?

As to the UCI: Zorzoli's out, a three doctor panel has been established. A stricter TUE policy and a Cortisol test seem to be useful steps, and things are pointing in that direction. Celerity in this regard would be welcome but I do not find it to be essential. But I speak for myself.

As to Sky/Wiggins: Contrition and transparency. But we're obviously not getting that. Neither are we getting Wiggins maillot rescinded, nor would I want it personally. Way too harsh, ceteris paribus. Though if you want to get technical if evidence surfaces that the Kenacort prescription was in fact a sham we actually legally should get that teddy lion repossessed. But as we stand, until we do get some semblance of forthright remorse, yep, we're just pissing into the wind. Trying to get the angle right, though. Spelling out "hypocrites" in the driven snow, if you will.

Yep.

Then there's the need to standardise across sports, so it'd be great to see cycling set the standard and then apply pressure to WADA to influence those other sports. Could be the making of WADA, but there's a fair amount of shit needing to be got together there first.

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

You can spend hours proving yourself wrong with Google scholar... http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=glucocorticoid+ergogenic&btnG=&hl=...

For example, from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/12/983.short we have 'Conclusion: Short-term glucocorticoid administration induced a marked improvement in endurance performance.'

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

Triamcinolone is a powerful corticosteroid.

For a long time athletes have been using corticosteroids to improve performance.

Wiggins took corticosteroids a week before the Tour, which he won. 

He took corticosteroids two other times, both a week prior to Grand Tours, coincidence? I think not.

I'm not hating on Brad, but I don't believe him.

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

Triamcinolone is a powerful corticosteroid.

For a long time athletes have been using corticosteroids to improve performance.

Wiggins took corticosteroids a week before the Tour, which he won. 

He took corticosteroids two other times, both a week prior to Grand Tours, coincidence? I think not.

I'm not hating on Brad, but I don't believe him.

I'm not supporting Brad either, the timing looks at the very least "unfortunate" *cough*, but I thought the point of Triamcinolone is that it results in muscle loss and hence not a great performance enhancer on its own. Millars description of its effects has been described as mis-leading in that it was most likely the other substances (e.g. EPO) that more than countered the negative side-effects. That said, i'm not a medical expert although I believe this has already been discussed (ad nauseum) in the comments of this very website.

fukawitribe wrote:

I'm not supporting Brad either, the timing looks at the very least "unfortunate" *cough*, but I thought the point of Triamcinolone is that it results in muscle loss and hence not a great performance enhancer on its own. Millars description of its effects has been described as mis-leading in that it was most likely the other substances (e.g. EPO) that more than countered the negative side-effects. That said, i'm not a medical expert although I believe this has already been discussed (ad nauseum) in the comments of this very website.

See here:

Malaconotus wrote:

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

You can spend hours proving yourself wrong with Google scholar... http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=glucocorticoid+ergogenic&btnG=&hl=...

For example, from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/12/983.short we have 'Conclusion: Short-term glucocorticoid administration induced a marked improvement in endurance performance.'

It doesn't matter whether you, David Millar, Bradley Wiggins or anyone else thinks it's performance enhancing or not. The discipine of sports medicine says it is, and it's banned by WADA. There's no way Wiggins should have been able to take it and race a grand tour.  We're talking about a sport that (rightly) took a Giro and a Tour off Contador for tiny amounts of clenbuterol, which is pretty innocuous by comparison. 

Jackson wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

I'm not supporting Brad either, the timing looks at the very least "unfortunate" *cough*, but I thought the point of Triamcinolone is that it results in muscle loss and hence not a great performance enhancer on its own. Millars description of its effects has been described as mis-leading in that it was most likely the other substances (e.g. EPO) that more than countered the negative side-effects. That said, i'm not a medical expert although I believe this has already been discussed (ad nauseum) in the comments of this very website.

See here:

Malaconotus wrote:

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

You can spend hours proving yourself wrong with Google scholar... http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=glucocorticoid+ergogenic&btnG=&hl=...

For example, from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/12/983.short we have 'Conclusion: Short-term glucocorticoid administration induced a marked improvement in endurance performance.'

It doesn't matter whether you, David Millar, Bradley Wiggins or anyone else thinks it's performance enhancing or not. The discipine of sports medicine says it is, and it's banned by WADA. There's no way Wiggins should have been able to take it and race a grand tour.  We're talking about a sport that (rightly) took a Giro and a Tour off Contador for tiny amounts of clenbuterol, which is pretty innocuous by comparison. 

 

I was talking about quotes from medical personal regarding the use of Triamcinolone in particular, rather than corticosteroids in general, that cast doubt on its efficacy as a performance enhancer. Searching on here, one such link was in the comments for this story

http://road.cc/content/news/205271-drug-used-bradley-wiggins-should-be-b...

with quotes in the Telegraph article from Ian Pavord, a Professor of Respiratory Medicine at the University of Oxford, and Stephen Durham, the Head of Section for Allergy and Clinical Immunology at NHLI, Imperial College and Professor of Allergy and Respiratory Medicine at Royal Brompton Hospital London. The article quoted was

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-...

I'm sure there's counter rebutals to that, although i'm not looking for them, but it was an interesting point of view and one not dealt with here. If you can give details or other links which demonstrate faults in those positions then good - pop 'em on here - as I say, i'm not holding a candle for anyone, i'm just more interested in the facts behind the case more that pitch-fork sharpening.

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

Triamcinolone is a powerful corticosteroid.

For a long time athletes have been using corticosteroids to improve performance.

Wiggins took corticosteroids a week before the Tour, which he won. 

He took corticosteroids two other times, both a week prior to Grand Tours, coincidence? I think not.

I'm not hating on Brad, but I don't believe him.

So where is the scientific evidence that corticosteroids improve performance.

If athletes have been using it for a long time there should be lots of it,  but there is none.

It could be a placebo effect.

Sir bradley was given permission to take it before three grand tours, two he did not win.

It was taken a few days before the grand tours to give protection during the thee week race , no good taking it two months before or after.

Remember the year he won the Tour, he also won the Paris - Nice, Tour of Romandie and the Criterium du Dauphine  - all one week stage races, it would have been a surprise if he did not win the Tour.

kingleo wrote:

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

kingleo wrote:

 There is no scientific evidence that triamcinolone gives any athletic improvement - the anti cycling media has made you all think there is.

        Prove me wrong.

Triamcinolone is a powerful corticosteroid.

For a long time athletes have been using corticosteroids to improve performance.

Wiggins took corticosteroids a week before the Tour, which he won. 

He took corticosteroids two other times, both a week prior to Grand Tours, coincidence? I think not.

I'm not hating on Brad, but I don't believe him.

So where is the scientific evidence that corticosteroids improve performance.

If athletes have been using it for a long time there should be lots of it,  but there is none.

It could be a placebo effect.

Sir bradley was given permission to take it before three grand tours, two he did not win.

It was taken a few days before the grand tours to give protection during the thee week race , no good taking it two months before or after.

Remember the year he won the Tour, he also won the Paris - Nice, Tour of Romandie and the Criterium du Dauphine  - all one week stage races, it would have been a surprise if he did not win the Tour.

 

Malaconotus has already put you back in your box. You not being arsed to read something doesn't stop it existing.

fukawitribe wrote:

I rather thought Grizzerly was referirng to the abundance of experts in the road.cc comments sections rather than the ones that signed off on the exemption - could be mistaken....

So did I.  The quotes were meant to imply that expert opinions of less-than-independent parties carry limited weight.

Must be Mad wrote:

Quote:

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us.

Look, I know trust in authority (any authority) is completely non existant these days - but are there any real grounds for beliving that the Doctors who approve the TUEs for WADA are not expert in their field? Why should their word carry less weight than yours?

And, just to be clear - what is the proof of corruption to which you refer?

That dovetailed nicely. I asserted no claims of corruption, much less ineptitude, but corruptibility. Experts get it wrong, all the time. Experts paid off by an interested party even more so. You'd be surprised at how many times "independent experts" wind up pitted against each other in court. It's an expensive undertaking, but one which is essential to properly understanding a situation, Which ultimately it is left to less expert but more  independent parties to ascertain.

This is not a matter where a scientific consensus is being denied its due by a mob. These TUEs were viewed very negatively by experts like Jeroen Swart and Ross Tucker. That particular course of treatment was seen as very unusual by the specialist doctors contacted by the BBC.  And interestingly enough, the (1) doctor  who signed off on the TUE and wasn't directly paid by Sky/Wiggins was suspended by the UCI after allegations were made as to his conduct (particularly his relationship with a doctor who was employed by Team Sky at the time). 

But ultimately you're entirely free to take his word over anybody else's. It's your critical reasoning as a reader that counts. Personally, I tend to rate the views of anyone whose main interest I consider to be clean sport,  regardless of whether they are UCI officials, scientists, fellow riders or even fans. And I think that bias is as important as expertise in critically assesing opinions. But at the end of the day I try to consider everyone's contributions based on the solidity of their arguments, not how much "weight" their "word" carries.

P.S. Davel, I partially agree with you as well. But I think the fact that lives are at stake is what lends greater gravity to the issue, and to the institutions we've created to deal with it.

Must be Mad wrote:

Quote:

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us.

Look, I know trust in authority (any authority) is completely non existant these days - but are there any real grounds for beliving that the Doctors who approve the TUEs for WADA are not expert in their field? Why should their word carry less weight than yours?

And, just to be clear - what is the proof of corruption to which you refer?

Just as Lance's shadow covers the riders, Michele Ferrari's does for the doctors...

Must be Mad wrote:

Look, I know trust in authority (any authority) is completely non existant these days - but are there any real grounds for beliving that the Doctors who approve the TUEs for WADA are not expert in their field? Why should their word carry less weight than yours?

And, just to be clear - what is the proof of corruption to which you refer?

Wiggins TUEs were authorised by one doctor, not the three now required. That doctor worked for the UCI, not WADA. He is Mario Zorzoli. Corruption allegations against him have never been proven, but neither have they been independently investigated.

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

So many experts who 'know' what should have been done / said / taken instead of what actually happened - were they there then? Thought not.

At the end of the day the TUE was requested, evaluated and granted by the UCI. Who gives a monkeys if Froome didn't know about Brad's allergies - what's he supposed to do if he's told anyway? It's the Team's business, not his. The amount of things these experts come out of the woodwork to pass judgement on years down the line...

STiG911 wrote:

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

So many experts who 'know' what should have been done / said / taken instead of what actually happened - were they there then? Thought not.

At the end of the day the TUE was requested, evaluated and granted by the UCI. Who gives a monkeys if Froome didn't know about Brad's allergies - what's he supposed to do if he's told anyway? It's the Team's business, not his. The amount of things these experts come out of the woodwork to pass judgement on years down the line...

I agree. We should always grant pro cyclists who are exploiting a previously-abused method of doping the benefit of the doubt. We should know better than to suggest anyone might be cheating, despite the mounting evidence.

Jackson wrote:

STiG911 wrote:

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

So many experts who 'know' what should have been done / said / taken instead of what actually happened - were they there then? Thought not.

At the end of the day the TUE was requested, evaluated and granted by the UCI. Who gives a monkeys if Froome didn't know about Brad's allergies - what's he supposed to do if he's told anyway? It's the Team's business, not his. The amount of things these experts come out of the woodwork to pass judgement on years down the line...

I agree. We should always grant pro cyclists who are exploiting a previously-abused method of doping the benefit of the doubt. We should know better than to suggest anyone might be cheating, despite the mounting evidence.

You point would have more impact if the same experts didn't tend to pass judgement even when the evidence wasn't mounting - or indeed exist at all at times.

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

The reason we have anti-doping is not because we want sport to be artisanal or some hackneyed sense of wholesome, but because we don't want athletes, particularly kids, sacrificing their lives and ruining their health in order to compete. 

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us. Without oversight, you end up with a system where the smartest figure out how to bend the rules on behalf of the wealthiest, to ruinous effect. Well, even more so than usual. 

If you're OK with that, it's your prerogative. But when the next sharp-toungued lawyer gets his client a one month suspended sentence for a murderous punishment pass, remember that it's the same principle at work.

Carton wrote:

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

The reason we have anti-doping is not because we want sport to be artisanal or some hackneyed sense of wholesome, but because we don't want athletes, particularly kids, sacrificing their lives and ruining their health in order to compete. 

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us. Without oversight, you end up with a system where the smartest figure out how to bend the rules on behalf of the wealthiest, to ruinous effect. Well, even more so than usual. 

If you're OK with that, it's your prerogative. But when the next sharp-toungued lawyer gets his client a one month suspended sentence for a murderous punishment pass, remember that it's the same principle at work.

I disagree slightly. Valid point, but I (naively perhaps) don't really want to watch a 'sport' where cyclists are popping whatever some doctor will sign off and darting up Mont Ventoux via help from a motor and someone else's blood in their veins.

Cheating is exactly that, and if doping doesn't offer a cheat an advantage, they'll be onto something else, as ably demonstrated by, erm cycling.

Carton wrote:

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

The reason we have anti-doping is not because we want sport to be artisanal or some hackneyed sense of wholesome, but because we don't want athletes, particularly kids, sacrificing their lives and ruining their health in order to compete. 

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us.

I rather thought Grizzerly was referirng to the abundance of experts in the road.cc comments sections rather than the ones that signed off on the exemption - could be mistaken....

fukawitribe wrote:

Carton wrote:

Grizzerly wrote:

It's amazing how many experts

experts there are to pronounce on the medical treatment of people they've never met.  We could save the NHS millions by using these guys to diagnose patients,  instead of all those doctors and techicians.  We didn't need GPs or X-ray departments or MRI scanners or anything like that.   I bet that would save more than the £350m per week we pay for the EU.

The reason we have anti-doping is not because we want sport to be artisanal or some hackneyed sense of wholesome, but because we don't want athletes, particularly kids, sacrificing their lives and ruining their health in order to compete. 

The reason we quibble with those medical "experts" who authorized the TUE, is because they've proven themselves to be as corruptible as the rest of us.

 

I rather thought Grizzerly was referirng to the abundance of experts in the road.cc comments sections rather than the ones that signed off on the exemption - could be mistaken....

Yeah, the sarcasm hasn't been picked up by all it would seem.

of all the tosh we all speculate this tops it for me

Carton wrote:

The reason we have anti-doping is not because we want sport to be artisanal or some hackneyed sense of wholesome, but because we don't want athletes, particularly kids, sacrificing their lives and ruining their health in order to compete. 

if a sport genuinely cared about health then it would require competitors to be healthy to compete.  So cyclists would probably have to be at a specific combined weight of bike and rider  for their height for instance. 

We have rules to 'level the playing field' not to make it some halcyon world. With having rules, you then have to take care to be within those rules  to compete. Morality is not part of the rules. 

of course there is a problem for BC and Team Sky who declare a clean approach not a legal approach to racing. 

The sad thing is it really is not much of a story, I still would like to know full details of the training in Russia that has been going on with a completely illegal testing regime.

frankly, finding out that athletes followed the rules and that the medication they were prescribed may also be used for enhancement is a boring non story. 

Who has been spending time out of competition training where they can evade any genuine testing? Who has recorded clean tests in the Russian labs and how many? Etc etc

turboprannet wrote:

Doesnt look great for Mo Farah either. Oh hang on, no-one gives a shit about him taking the exact same thing. That's weird. 

Actually, I think we may nearing the point where everyone assumes runners aren't clean. While cyclists could actually be somewhat cleaner in the public perception. Or maybe not?

Anyway Froome looked to be sick as a dawg, and he discussed his TUEs publicly. He refused one in 2015, because he acknowledged the ethical issues. He also used less potent TUEs, at less suspicous times, when he did use them. And so it seems that if he was cheating, it wasn't though TUE abuse. That doesn't mean he's clean either, but he's less tone-deaf than the guys sticking to the "these are not the droids you're looking for" boilerplate Sky media strategy.