Sir Steve Redgrave: MPs should blame anti-doping rules, not Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Seb Coe should have being sacked off and his title stripped for his complicity in all this, absolutely disgusting!

I'm no Seb Coe fan, and it is extremely fishy, but to be fair to him on Russia at least - the IAAF first banned Russia in 2015. It was the other sports federations and the IOC that dragged their feet over a Russia Rio ban - the IAAF took a stand.

And, of course the same committee that has thrown Wiggins and Sky a smelly report with little evidence, also said Coe not knowing about Russia smelled bad... With no evidence.

A cynic might look at the IOC's sports that are Too Big To Fail and not be surprised that there would be cover-ups. And, if you picked the jewel in the Olympics' crown, and by far the biggest star in that sport, and wonder about that individual (rhymes with Hussain Holt) , surrounded by countrymen colleagues who have ALL had adverse drug findings, while he has remained squeaky clean, a cynic might get very cynical indeed.

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Agree totaly, TUEs need independent Doctors to make sure the Doctor on the team salay is not just bending the rules. This could be the way forward, or maybe you could have Doctors just on TUE duty (payed for by the anti doping) to make the call?

Edgeley wrote:

....   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

As a type 1 diabetic I can confirm this is false - the opposite is more likely to happen in fact.

As far as i'm aware it can be used by non diabetics for possible muscle growth? - but at significant risk of the athlete having a hypo (low blood sugar/bonking - potentially quite dangerous) and also developing type one diabetes themselves. That means on average 4 injections a day for the rest of your life plus many daily blood tests and so on and on. Really not worth it. 

As a side note I'm deeply offended that people with chronic, incurable conditions need to keep getting TUE's, it's bullshit.

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Sigh. Why don't people actually read about this stuff before commenting? A TUE is NOT issued by the team doctor. The team doctor requests one, and the UCI grant it.

tonyleatham wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

The problem here is, I think, that the TUE was issued by a doctor employed by the team (or was he employed by British Cycling - it is hard to keep track).    There will always have to be some TUEs, and some of the things being used will have performance enhancing effects.   As an example, insulin, which Redgrave and others need to live, becuase they don't produce their own, can be used to enable weight loss.

 

At the moment, it isn't against the rules if the doctor is doing the cheating.   That is why it is a "grey area".

 

So who checks the doctors?    We have all heard of doctors who enable cheating or who can be fooled into issuing an uneccessary drug - how can they be weeded out?   A start would be for all TUEs to have to be permitted by a doctor not associated with a team.

Sigh. Why don't people actually read about this stuff before commenting? A TUE is NOT issued by the team doctor. The team doctor requests one, and the UCI grant it.

 

Yes, blooming frustrating!

Reedo wrote:

Taking triamcinalone to lose weight with a medical pretext is a rule violation in which the doctor and rider are complicit. It is not a gray area. 

So you know exactly why he took it?

Odd as the rest of us don't which is why it is considered  a grey area.

Also you are aware that your ethical view stance isn't shared by anyone else but there are your own based on your upbringing, social status, culture etc. 

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

The same can be said for:

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

SingleSpeed wrote:

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

 

 

The same can be said for:

 

 

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

 

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

you have a very warped sense of prioroties if you think that the Wiggins case is in any way morally equivalent to the examples you listed.

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

Bigfoz wrote:

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

I don't think many independent doctors would contradict a team doctor.  So even if you need a sign off from someone independent, that isn't enough.   The team doctor shouldn't be in any way involved in TUEs.    Honestly, who is going to tell a team doctor that a rider doesn't have asthma, if the team doctor says he does?   Even an independent examination wouldn't be enough, even if practical, for a condition that can come and go.

In this particular case, the team doctor apparently couldn't keep records or stop his laptop being stolen, or remember why a bunch of testosterone turned up unordered, which is why there is a smell around the team.  But he shouldn't have been in a position where he was able to prescribe anything to his fellow employees in the first place.

Edgeley wrote:

Bigfoz wrote:

SingleSpeed wrote:

 

Furthermore, the very crux of what the "Wiggins fanboys" and Redgrave are saying, and what the TUE regime means, is that the drugs were medically required.

So unless you're a doctor who has treated Wiggins, and you can show us all your evidence, you're just talking out your arse.

Seconded. Whether you personally think the method  was unpalatable, that's an opinion. It passed the TUE system, which does require medical evidence, not just a Dr saying "yeah well, he needs it like". The system is designed by WADA / UKAD for exactly the kind of occurences where an athlete has a medical need. Whether performance is gained is not condidered, only the medical need and appropriateness of the treatment. And apparently they aren't straightforward to get either.

If you decide to be informed about TUE process, take a look here, you'll quickly realise the process is detailed, involved and medically robust. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-e... you can even choose which TUE you'd like to know about. It requires a documented medical history of the problem, a number of signoffs, not just the team Dr, and consequences of non treatment documented .

I don't think many independent doctors would contradict a team doctor.  So even if you need a sign off from someone independent, that isn't enough.   The team doctor shouldn't be in any way involved in TUEs.    Honestly, who is going to tell a team doctor that a rider doesn't have asthma, if the team doctor says he does?   Even an independent examination wouldn't be enough, even if practical, for a condition that can come and go.

 

In this particular case, the team doctor apparently couldn't keep records or stop his laptop being stolen, or remember why a bunch of testosterone turned up unordered, which is why there is a smell around the team.  But he shouldn't have been in a position where he was able to prescribe anything to his fellow employees in the first place.

If you read the WADA docs linked, you'd see it's not that simple - for example to get a sinusitis TUE, you not only have to prove a documented medical history, but also need either an Endoscopy or Cat scan result to back it up... It's not just a couple of Drs not contradicting each other. I suspect WADA etc have thought this through a lot more than we have and with far more qualified people...

SingleSpeed wrote:

The same can be said for:

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

In terms of magnitude, not at all.  A man cheating in a bike race pales into insignificance when compared to sexually abusing those in abject poverty or starting an illegal war on fabricated evidence.

Some of your examples actually prove Redgrave's point.  Just as Starbucks, Amazon et al operate within the rules of the tax code and Japanese whaling vessels operate within their "research" quotas, Wiggins and Team Sky operated within the rules of the sporting authorities.  If you've an issue with what they're able to legally do, your issue is with the system and you should direct your complaints towards the people who created it, not those who operate within it.  Ethics don't come into it.

SingleSpeed wrote:

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

This most certainly is similar to the example you cite for McLaren, much closer to that than any other example you bring up.

As Redgrave points out, the rules have been exploited, not broken and that is the problem. We all know that the approach is not within the spirit of the sport, but pushing the envelope is part and parcel of elite sport.

SingleSpeed wrote:

captain_slog wrote:

Sound sense from Redgrave, and disingenuousness from Collins: "We're not saying he's broken the rules, he's operating within the rules."

 

The same can be said for:

 

OXFAM charity workers claiming some extra curricular relief from the locals.

Starbucks, Amazon, Apple essentially not paying a penny of tax in the UK.

Bush and Blair going to war on the evidence provided.

Nestle selling powdered baby milk to starving ethiopians.

UK firms selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to kill countless innocents in Yemen.

Japanese fishing companies slaughtering thousands of Whales each year for 'Scientific Research'.

 

This isn't McClaren designing an exhaust pipe which brilliantly and cleverly dumps downforce over the rear end which isn't strictly legal but kind of blurs the limits of the rule book . This is systematic use of Drugs when medically not required, dirty is dirty no matter how much the wiggins fan boys want to play this, naivety will only get people so far then you're in the realm of defending the indefensible. 

The point here isn't that any of the people at Sky aren't criminals or terrible people, it's simply the gaming of the system. I say 'simply' in order to play it down, like it should be played down. Because where ethics aren't measureable, rules are and when it boils down to it, it's the rulemakers who decide where to place the actual ethical lines.

You and every other 'outraged person' are possibly thinking we live in Narnia if you think that, in an industry worth $45,000,000,000 any top level team or top level athlete would rather lose, other than play right up to the limit of the rules or try and find ways around them.

I think it's probably too late to think that Brailsford could possibly turn around now and say that they haven't 'gamed the system' when it's clear that they have, but come on people, this isn't 'dirty' it's not 'Lance' it is the same as McLaren blurring the lines with their downforce or Suarez diving to get a penalty, or Federer stopping a losing game to be injured to break the flow of his opponent. Necessity is simply the mother of invention, us humans are wired up to find ways solutions. 

Sky have won by being the very best team they could be within the rules, it is not the same as being the very best they could be outside of the rules, despite the headlines.

I'd imagine that all of these totally legal drugs are at times just used to the max on the basis of looking for the marginal gains not for health benefits, there are an awful lot of athmatics in the pro peloton, we the internet should really just get off our high horses and understand this. 

With the whole Froome thing, I think is a great case for what happens when you play to close to the sun... I believe that Chris Froome probably takes salbutomol up to or near the maximum legal dose he's allowed, becuase 1) marginal gains 2) he will be told to do so and 3) becuase it is within the rules to do so. I believe that he probably wouldn't have taken more than he should have and that it probably IS a physiological anomaly due to whatever high pressure situation his body was under. However by taking more than medically reccomended or required then it is simply gaming the system and whilst that is not cheating, it does cross a line, oh actually it really doesn't. So far it's all legal, but then he has a bad day, gets a bit too dehydrated and all of as sudden his piss is sending off alarm bells, he's caught, it's crossed an actual line and he's caught gaming the system, his punishment for that freak situation will be a ban. That does not mean he (or Wiggo) are as bad as Lance Armstrong or the Brazilian cycling team, or Femke Van den Driessche, or the whole of the Russian track and field team. 

And gaming the system in sport is something which won't change. Because everyone games the systems in place. Redgrave has sort of nailed it in my opinion.

Let us also not forget here that through all of this controversy, unanswered questions, headlines for the past two years (well it feels that long anyway) is mainly from leaks, anonomus sources, from different angles, it's not whistleblowing (which is a good thing), there is a very strong political undercurrent driving this.