Amount of TUEs used in 2014

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
peloton said:
Not taking the obvious bait.
While the post is obvious bait, it certainly is no more obvious than the usual fare posted by those of the opposite persuasion.
Funny how immediately recognise the one, but not the other.


In regard of Sky, that was an excellent find by the hog.
As we have been told many times before, they are caught out by their inconsistent responses. Not so here.
In this case, we now have figures for both 2014 and end 2012/3 that are consistent with the team not exploiting TUEs and consistent with a team being truthful with their release of info on the subject.

Now, has anyone any thoughts as to why the French are so resistant to releasing their data?
Is anyone even remotely interested?
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,375
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
Now, has anyone any thoughts as to why the French are so resistant to releasing their data?
Is anyone even remotely interested?
Well I'am interested -but can only speculate to the matter..

Maybe and that's a big maybe. It is because the "clean" frenchmen pressured by france's anti-doping laws are pushed to exploit "legal" doping opportunities but feel disinclined to publish potential high number of Tue's I dunno?

BTW some numbers from WADA here:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/02-_fedoruk_matthew_-_wada_tue_symposium_slides_2014_0.pdf
Not from 2014 though..

Cycling represents 18% of all tue's granted in 2013..
That's quite a number considering number of athletes in comparison to other sports..
EDIT: Numbers from USADA it seems
 
Race Radio said:
Crashes make the sport beautiful?
Nibs thought crashes made the TDF very beautiful indeed.

MatParker117 said:
US Medical Privacy laws vary from state to state it's illegal in california where BMC is headquartered to give medical information for this purpose.
Not saying you’re wrong (I live in Cal, and let’s just say I would expect something like this from my state), but that’s kind of like saying a hospital can’t disclose how many medical procedures of a particular type it performs every year. Or a business can’t disclose how many sick days were taken by its employees during the year (knowing Cal, there may well be a law against this, too).

I can understand a team not wanting to say what the TUEs are for (though NN didn’t seem to mind), but just stating the number of them really doesn’t seem to compromise anyone’s privacy. We don’t know who or what. Not to mention that this information is far more relevant for a sports team than for a standard business, since fans arguably have the right to have some information concerning the substances athletes are putting into their bodies.
 
red_flanders said:
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.
Diabetics and insulin being a counter example of a long term condition to be managed by something on the prohibited list.

In days gone by Alex Dowsett would probably have had to have a TUE for factor 8 when it was extracted from donated blood, thankfully those days are long gone.
 
mrhender said:
Well I'am interested -but can only speculate to the matter..

Maybe and that's a big maybe. It is because the "clean" frenchmen pressured by france's anti-doping laws are pushed to exploit "legal" doping opportunities but feel disinclined to publish potential high number of Tue's I dunno?

BTW some numbers from WADA here:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/02-_fedoruk_matthew_-_wada_tue_symposium_slides_2014_0.pdf
Not from 2014 though..

Cycling represents 18% of all tue's granted in 2013..


That's quite a number considering number of athletes in comparison to other sports..
EDIT: Numbers from USADA it seems
It's even more impressive a number, given that it's for the US.
Staggering infact.
Cycling: Not so much the sport of champions, more the sport of the sick.:D
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Mellow Velo said:
Now, what about all those teams who stayed silent on their number?
what about them?:confused:

Mellow Velo said:
In regard of Sky, that was an excellent find by the hog.
As we have been told many times before, they are caught out by their inconsistent responses. Not so here.
In this case, we now have figures for both 2014 and end 2012/3 that are consistent with the team not exploiting TUEs and consistent with a team being truthful with their release of info on the subject.
or consistent with a team that cares alot about perception.
you're all over the place not acknowledging that we have nothing to go by except Sky's word.
May be truthful in this case, but it's not as if they haven't lied before so we cannot at all be sure. Perhaps stop pretending that number 2 is some sort of hard, independently verified piece of data. It isn't.
 
sniper said:
what about them?:confused:

or consistent with a team that cares alot about perception.
you're all over the place not acknowledging that we have nothing to go by except Sky's word.
May be truthful in this case, but it's not as if they haven't lied before so we cannot at all be sure. Perhaps stop pretending that number 2 is some sort of hard, independently verified piece of data. It isn't.
I guess the obvious question is; what does the number of TUEs represent? If its 2 compared to 50, what does that mean? If the team says nothing what does that mean?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
sniper said:
Perhaps stop pretending that number 2 is some sort of hard, independently verified piece of data. It isn't.
Certainly possible they are lying, that there actually is a convayer belt and they are cranking out TUE's while telling the public they are not......but the rumors are of something different.

For several years the talk has been that SKY is working around the TUE process by using products like Cortisone out of competition when a TUE is not needed. As long as they stop 8-9 days prior to a race they are fine. Inventing a story that SKY has lots of TUE's plays right into their game. They can dismiss the speculation while ignoring the real issue of OOC usage.

Regarding the other teams. Europecar has long been rumored of using lots of TUE's. Would be interesting to see their numbers.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,375
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
It's even more impressive a number, given that it's for the US.
Staggering infact.
Cycling: Not so much the sport of champions, more the sport of the sick.:D

Indeed.. By quick calculation it is 50 tue's for american cyclists in that year..

If you include the denied and the returned (because of incomplete applications) the attempted no. could be close to 100...

Hardly a coincidence that WADA are concerned of abuse of the system..

I would love to see the european numbers, but they seem harder to find..
If anyone has/finds the numbers I would love to see them..
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
I guess the obvious question is; what does the number of TUEs represent? If its 2 compared to 50, what does that mean? If the team says nothing what does that mean?
indeed.

Race Radio said:
Certainly possible they are lying, that there actually is a convayer belt and they are cranking out TUE's while telling the public they are not......but the rumors are of something different.

For several years the talk has been that SKY is working around the TUE process by using products like Cortisone out of competition when a TUE is not needed. As long as they stop 8-9 days prior to a race they are fine. Inventing a story that SKY has lots of TUE's plays right into their game. They can dismiss the speculation while ignoring the real issue of OOC usage.

Regarding the other teams. Europecar has long been rumored of using lots of TUE's. Would be interesting to see their numbers.
excellent points/info, appreciate it.

My previous post was meant to express my surprise at how willing some posters are to take statements coming from the teams themselves at face value, as if we've never been lied to before in this industry where perception is reality.
But your post puts a few things in a clearer daylight.
 
sniper said:
what about them?:confused:
My point, well made.
Thanks.

sniper said:
or consistent with a team that cares alot about perception.
you're all over the place not acknowledging that we have nothing to go by except Sky's word.
May be truthful in this case, but it's not as if they haven't lied before so we cannot at all be sure. Perhaps stop pretending that number 2 is some sort of hard, independently verified piece of data. It isn't.
If you weren't so intent on dragging the debate back to the usual team and had read my post properly, you would see that I had made this point with :"on this subject".
Or, as you say, in this case.

As for being all over the place.
Seems to be the domain of those who wish to select evidential snippets to be fact, fiction, or inconclusive, depending on how they fit their raison d'etre.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
neineinei said:
It's UCI (call Zorzoli) who approve TUE's for WT teams and anyone else in their international registered testing pool, and the other Brits gets their TUE's from UK Anti-doping. British Cycling handing out TUE's must be back in the days before the Domsday Book.

http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/
http://www.ukad.org.uk/support-personnel/checking-medications/
Agreed, not sure why someone would pretend a Fed like British Cycling is cranking them out.

This loophole really needs to be tighten up. Some riders/teams have been exploiting TUEs for years. Others exploit the OOC loopholes. Often the products used are pretty toxic if abused.
 
thehog said:
I guess the obvious question is; what does the number of TUEs represent? If its 2 compared to 50, what does that mean? If the team says nothing what does that mean?
I'm not sure the number comparison really means that much. For me its the teams that say nothing or try to deflect that speaks loudest.

If they had none then why not say so. If they have had loads then that is an issue, especially if they are MPCC : were they OOC or IC?
 
Race Radio said:
Certainly possible they are lying, that there actually is a convayer belt and they are cranking out TUE's while telling the public they are not......but the rumors are of something different.
Since when could teams grant TUE's (from a conveyor belt or not)? Anyway I'm sure you meant they were applying for them conveyor belt fashion.

Race Radio said:
For several years the talk has been that SKY is working around the TUE process by using products like Cortisone out of competition when a TUE is not needed. As long as they stop 8-9 days prior to a race they are fine. Inventing a story that SKY has lots of TUE's plays right into their game. They can dismiss the speculation while ignoring the real issue of OOC usage.
Technically this is not against the rules. I'm not saying its right mind you or that I agree with it, but it isn't against the rules. Also I thought this was a way of life in French cycling (or am I getting confused with about 15 years ago?).


Race Radio said:
Regarding the other teams. Europecar has long been rumored of using lots of TUE's. Would be interesting to see their numbers.
 
Aug 3, 2009
1,562
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
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.
I am too, hence my post before the thread went down the drain. Seems to have revived again.

I do not get why the bunch which mosts like to point fingers is just utterly silent, and not only the WT teams, but also second tier like Bretagne. I am not aware of any particular privacy laws forbidding to publish this kind of data in France. Anybody knows if this is an obvious answer?

Steppers answer is nice too, it means i give you the number so you can compile stats, but sue the crap out of you if you publish them....

Some teams are borderline pathetic
 
May 19, 2010
1,901
0
0
If I am not mistaken again at least some of the difference between "adverse analytical findings" (in testing statistics from WADA etc) and doping positives can be attributed to TUE's. One TUE can produce an AAF every time the athlete is tested, so 19 AAF could in theory just mean that one diabetic has been tested 19 times.

Last year Fédération française de cyclisme collected 891 in competition urine samples, of which 19 gave adverse analytical findings (2,3 %). They also collected 80 out of competition urine samples with 0 adverse analytical findings, and 91 in competition blood samples with 1 adverse analytical finding, and 41 out of competition blood samples with 0 adverse analytical findings.

UCI collected 6006 in competition urine samples which gave 78 adverse analytical findings (1,3 %)

To complicate this even more UCI did of course test French riders, and the French federation might have tested foreign riders.

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2013-Anti-Doping-Testing-Figures-TESTING-AUTHORITY-REPORT.pdf (page 44)
 
Roude Leiw said:
I am too, hence my post before the thread went down the drain. Seems to have revived again.

I do not get why the bunch which mosts like to point fingers is just utterly silent, and not only the WT teams, but also second tier like Bretagne. I am not aware of any particular privacy laws forbidding to publish this kind of data in France. Anybody knows if this is an obvious answer?

Steppers answer is nice too, it means i give you the number so you can compile stats, but sue the crap out of you if you publish them....

Some teams are borderline pathetic
Would you expect anything less from Lefevre? :rolleyes:
 
TheSpud said:
I'm not sure the number comparison really means that much. For me its the teams that say nothing or try to deflect that speaks loudest.

If they had none then why not say so. If they have had loads then that is an issue, especially if they are MPCC : were they OOC or IC?
Depends who's asking. Some random Dutch journalist, I'm not sure I'd answer. Also depends whom the journalist spoke to. A team guy, a doctor etc. were they authorised to provide an 'official' response?

The silence is not really a "no comment" or an attempt to cover up.

It's a fairly flimsy process and I'm surprised you've put so much weight on the responses. Hard data gives hard results.

I would also add that the context is important; Froome killing the field on a TUE compared to a random French guy coming 57th, then there is a big difference that the TUE might have aided the performance.

Food for thought, yes?
 
thehog said:
Depends who's asking. Some random Dutch journalist, I'm not sure I'd answer. Also depends whom the journalist spoke to. A team guy, a doctor etc. were they authorised to provide an 'official' response?

The silence is not really a "no comment" or an attempt to cover up.

It's a fairly flimsy process and I'm surprised you've put so much weight on the responses. Hard data gives hard results.

I would also add that the context is important; Froome killing the field on a TUE compared to a random French guy coming 57th, then there is a big difference that the TUE might have aided the performance.

Food for thought, yes?
Well context is always relevant. I assume though that the journo did ask someone with some knowledge and not the cleaner so I would give it some credence.

I think the 'aided performance' question is still relevant for the French guy who comes 57th. Maybe without it he would have been in the broom wagon and not able to play domestique when needed?

All TUEs are a performance enhancer in my view - they allow someone to compete when they are ill and would otherwise have suffered / struggled. Ergo - performance enhancement.

Maybe the question should be:

"Should TUEs be allowed:

(a) At all?
(b) Only OOC?"

And even if that question was answered there would still be grey areas.
 
TheSpud said:
Well context is always relevant. I assume though that the journo did ask someone with some knowledge and not the cleaner so I would give it some credence.

I think the 'aided performance' question is still relevant for the French guy who comes 57th. Maybe without it he would have been in the broom wagon and not able to play domestique when needed?

All TUEs are a performance enhancer in my view - they allow someone to compete when they are ill and would otherwise have suffered / struggled. Ergo - performance enhancement.

Maybe the question should be:

"Should TUEs be allowed:

(a) At all?
(b) Only OOC?"

And even if that question was answered there would still be grey areas.
This is getting into a tricky field though. Would you support the entire Novo Nordisk team not being able to race as their diabetes meds allow them to race safely and is therefore performance enhancing? What about Dowsett and his haemophilia?

The entire topic of TUE's is a grey area. Each and every medication and condition is different, this is what makes it so tough to regulate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY