Amount of TUEs used in 2014

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
sniper said:
good point.

i don't remember anyone claiming that, but I may have missed it of course.
Ummmm

thehog said:
Looks like BC is approving those TUEs like a conveyer belt.
thehog said:
Sky are doping but not like Armstrong was. They are using the TUEs
Earlier this year Sky said they had 2 TUEs, on in competition and one out of competition.

For me the larger is issue is what are they doing that does not need a TUE. You can use Cortisone at training camps as long as you stop 8-9 days prior to a race. No TUE needed.
 
ebandit said:
Wa ha ha ha ha :D

So suddenly it's not evidence :rolleyes:

"This isn't a court of law" etc etc

Mark L
Don't forget, this is the off season now ;)

Most teams are 3-4 months away from needing them again. I suspect that once spring starts, these numbers will get A LOT higher, from all teams, including Sky. It doesn't strike you as unusual how many teams claim to have asthmatic riders, yet no (or very few) TUE's? ;)
 
ebandit said:
He is right though isn't he....you just couldn't help yourself turning into all about Sky could you ;)

Mark L
They are the one WT team that has had a rider admit to multiple TUE's. That rider has not only used his medication during a race, it also means he has his entire team's quota of TUE's prescribed to him. That rider has also had a history of being less than accurate with the truth on multiple occasions. I think some healthy scepticism is warranted. Especially when this sport has had several cases of TUE's being backdated.

I wouldn't be surprised if just about every team questioned has abused the TUE process at some stage, including MPCC teams. This question needs to be asked again in late June, closely followed by the real figures from WADA. That would result in some uncomfortable squirming I'm sure...
 
42x16ss said:
Don't forget, this is the off season now ;)

Most teams are 3-4 months away from needing them again. I suspect that once spring starts, these numbers will get A LOT higher, from all teams, including Sky.
The number is for TUEs throughout the whole of 2014, not just now

42x16ss said:
It doesn't strike you as unusual how many teams claim to have asthmatic riders, yet no (or very few) TUE's? ;)
Standard asthma inhalers don't require a TUE

42x16ss said:
They are the one WT team that has had a rider admit to multiple TUE's. That rider has not only used his medication during a race, it also means he has his entire team's quota of TUE's prescribed to him. That rider has also had a history of being less than accurate with the truth on multiple occasions. I think some healthy scepticism is warranted. Especially when this sport has had several cases of TUE's being backdated.
Froome said he had one in 2014 and one a previous year, so he has half his team's quota.

42x16ss said:
I wouldn't be surprised if just about every team questioned has abused the TUE process at some stage, including MPCC teams. This question needs to be asked again in late June, closely followed by the real figures from WADA. That would result in some uncomfortable squirming I'm sure...
The number is for the whole of 2014. I doubt 2015 will be much different.

You seem very disappointed that the numbers are low for the respondents. I would have thought that was a good thing? It may not support your preset opinions, but surely you would rather a clean sport and be wrong than have a dirty sport and be right? Or are your opinions all that matters?
 
Parker said:
...but surely you would rather a clean sport and be wrong than have a dirty sport and be right?
How does the number of TUE's claimed equal a clean or dirty sport? Not just a question for you, though your comment is what created the question in my mind. TUE's should be rare exceptions to allow an athlete to compete when temporarily challenged by a condition.

Low or high # of TUE's should have nothing to do with cleanliness or not.
 
Parker said:
You seem very disappointed that the numbers are low for the respondents. I would have thought that was a good thing? It may not support your preset opinions, but surely you would rather a clean sport and be wrong than have a dirty sport and be right? Or are your opinions all that matters?
Actually, I'm not. If you check my post I'm explaining why I'm not surprised the reported level of TUE's is quite low
 
Parker said:
The number is for TUEs throughout the whole of 2014, not just now
I thought it was only current TUE's, did the article state that it was for the entire year? (In your defence it may have, I didn't see.) How many riders claim pollen allergies? As an allergy sufferer, I can tell you that there are several antihistamines that require a TUE.
 
Granville57 said:
Make you wonder just what it its they've applied for in the past.
Yes it does. What drug treats mental health but appears on the prohibited list?

Also, the question posed was "how many TUEs did the team use" not "give me a rundown of every rider's entire medical history". Just stating a number of TUEs is anonymous enough that there's no legitimate threat of an invasion of privacy.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Race Radio said:
Ummmm

Earlier this year Sky said they had 2 TUEs, on in competition and one out of competition.

For me the larger is issue is what are they doing that does not need a TUE. You can use Cortisone at training camps as long as you stop 8-9 days prior to a race. No TUE needed.
thanks, and good points
(though still the numbers given in the answers can hardly be taken as hard data can they? they can basically say what they want. otoh, i don't object to taking the answers at face value for the sake of the discussion.)
 
sniper said:
thanks, and good points
(though still the numbers given in the answers can hardly be taken as hard data can they? they can basically say what they want. otoh, i don't object to taking the answers at face value for the sake of the discussion.)
The 2 TUEs, actually came from David Walsh from Inside Sky (2013).

Considering Walsh didn't know about Froome's asthma I think it can be taken with a grain of salt. Walsh was quoting Farrell.

Reference:

 
thehog said:
The 2 TUEs, actually came from David Walsh from Inside Sky (2013).

Considering Walsh didn't know about Froome's asthma I think it can be taken with a grain of salt. Walsh was quoting Farrell.

Reference:


Nice find, hog, but the figures gathered for the article are only for the year 2014.
(see the open post)

Now, what about all those teams who stayed silent on their number?
 
Mellow Velo said:
Nice find, hog, but the figures gathered for the article are only for the year 2014.
(see the open post)
Agreed & correct. I was pointing out the the 2 TUEs comment (try saying that drunk!) was not from 2014 but from 2013 and prior. Again coming from Walsh I'm not sure Sky told him the full story.
 
Oct 9, 2014
212
0
0
the sceptic said:
Do you think the other TUE was for horse steroids too?
You won't listen to any rational medical explanation for that will you? Prednisolone is not just "Horse steroids" it's to treat quite a lot of inflammatory and auto-immune diseases. The talking point that you keep repeating makes it seem like the only use is as a pure steroid. Whether a TUE should allow a rider to take that in the race is something different, because I will admit that, as a corticosteroid, there are some rather convenient side effects. But to suggest, for example, that Davidenok's steroid were erroneous and simply that hr was targeted and never, ever let this go is disingenuous. You're a good poster in the standard forum, but as soon as you enter the clinic you become a rabid witchhunter with a score to settle.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
Just ignore sceptic.... It is just baiting and not even original at that

So, looking at the GT winning teams of the last two years (excluding RS) we have double winner Astana refusing to answer, Saxo refusing, Movistar refusing

.......and here you all are trying to make it all about Sky by saying you don't believe them :rolleyes:

Hilarious

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
.......and here you all are trying to make it all about Sky by saying you don't believe them :rolleyes:
That's a little unfair ebandit - only a couple of people are trying to make it all about Sky.

Anyway I'm more interested in what the others said (or didn't). Of course what we don't know is whether those TUEs were in competition or not. I was under the impression that the MPCC teams didn't race under TUEs, so they must have been for OOC use?
 
ebandit said:
Just ignore sceptic.... It is just baiting and not even original at that

So, looking at the GT winning teams of the last two years (excluding RS) we have double winner Astana refusing to answer, Saxo refusing, Movistar refusing

.......and here you all are trying to make it all about Sky by saying you don't believe them :rolleyes:

Hilarious

Mark L

Given that the teams must have been asked the question at the very tail end of the season, if not after the racing stopped for the year, I am amazed at Astana's: “What are you? Nuts?“ comment.
By this time, the were already in the mire with both Iglinskys and a Conti or two popped.

Hardly the sort of restorative language they should be feeding to the press!

Lampre's flowery prose is hilarious. Like a naughty boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar and deflectors shields set to the max.

As for Tommy V's lot............................

I am genuinely shocked that the French, usually in the vanguard of doping initiative, they appear to be running a closed shop in respect of TUEs.

Smells really bad for them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS