Amount of TUEs used in 2014

[Mellow Velo]

Interesting to see that the champions of the "cyclisme a 2 vitesses" opted not to answer

This.
17 teams with no, or obscure responses.
Not only MM but not a single French team prepared to give a number.

Still, much better to say nothing, or so I am led to believe.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I remember him saying that "TUEs are rather personal."

A point expanded upon by Sir Dave:

Make you wonder just what it its they've applied for in the past.

Sir Dave Brailsford finally says something sensible

 

[sniper]

If they are all backdating them, they only need them if their rider has been controlled ;-)

good point.

Huh? Wasn't British Cycling supposed to be approving TUEs like a conveyor belt? Guess that was made up

i don't remember anyone claiming that, but I may have missed it of course.
In any case, let's not jump to conclusions as if this were hard data. It's not. It's just a bunch of answers to a journo's inquiry. Nothing more nothing less. Has UCI confirmed the validity of the answers?
See also bobbins point above, which may apply more to Sky than to any other team.

 

[ebandit]

In any case, let's not jump to conclusions as if this were hard data. It's not. It's just a bunch of answers to a journo's inquiry. Nothing more nothing less. Has UCI confirmed the validity of the answers?
.

Wa ha ha ha ha

So suddenly it's not evidence

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

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

didn't froome alone admit to more than 2 TUEs?

I think he said he had 2 in total - TdR and 1 in training(?), I assume in the same season but not sure if it was specified. Best ask TheHog - he's read The Climb from cover to cover so knows best.

 

[TheSpud]

Wa ha ha ha ha

So suddenly it's not evidence

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

Mark L

Thats transparency for you ...

 

[TheSpud]

See also bobbins point above, which may apply more to Sky than to any other team.

Why ?

.....

 

[the sceptic]

Wa ha ha ha ha

So suddenly it's not evidence

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

Mark L

Sky have lied before. Why should we trust anything they say?

 

[ebandit]

Sky have lied before. Why should we trust anything they say?

You say they've lied.....that doesn't mean they've lied.

Besides....this thread isn't about Sky....but I understand that it is your obsession

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

Sky have lied before. Why should we trust anything they say?

Well, they've had the existence of one leaked so if they lied here they could very easily be caught out. I guess that didnt occur to you ...

 

[TheSpud]

This.
17 teams with no, or obscure responses.
Not only MM but not a single French team prepared to give a number.

Still, much better to say nothing, or so I am led to believe.

Transparency ...

 

[TheSpud]

Interesting to see that the champions of the "cyclisme a 2 vitesses" opted not to answer

The OPQS answer is most odd ...

 

[the sceptic]

Well, they've had the existence of one leaked so if they lied here they could very easily be caught out. I guess that didnt occur to you ...

Ball, not man.

Did anyone question sky on their previous lies?

They might have had 2 TUEs or 200. No one knows and I certainly don't trust anything coming from Sky.

 

[neineinei]

Huh? Wasn't British Cycling supposed to be approving TUEs like a conveyor belt? Guess that was made up

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/

 

[TheSpud]

Ball, not man.

Did anyone question sky on their previous lies?

They might have had 2 TUEs or 200. No one knows and I certainly don't trust anything coming from Sky.

Thats another £1 for my pension then.

Questionning Sky on their "previous lies" is irrelevant here. They answered with a precise answer, which is more than a number of the MPCC teams did ...

 

[the sceptic]

Thats another £1 for my pension then.

Questionning Sky on their "previous lies" is irrelevant here. They answered with a precise answer, which is more than a number of the MPCC teams did ...

And? Does that prove they are not lying?

You seem to struggle to understand my point, which is that if no one questioned sky on their previous lies, why should they be worried about it now?

 

[ebandit]

And? Does that prove they are not lying?

You seem to struggle to understand my point, which is that if no one questioned sky on their previous lies, why should they be worried about it now?

You say they lied.....no offence, but that doesn't really count for much

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

You say they lied.....no offence, but that doesn't really count for much

Mark L

Where did I say that? got a link?

 

[TheSpud]

And? Does that prove they are not lying?

You seem to struggle to understand my point, which is that if no one questioned sky on their previous lies, why should they be worried about it now?

No more than it proves they are lying.

Why should they be worried? Well, the fact is they were asked a question about a subject (TUEs) where they have already had information leaked to the press. They would be monumentally stupid to even think about lying when answering this question for fear that something could be leaked again. Pretty straight forward in my view.

 

[ebandit]

Where did I say that? got a link?

err...

Yep

Sky have lied before. Why should we trust anything they say?

 

[Mellow Velo]

So, another interesting topic forced down the Sky toilet by the obsessed few.
This place has been made into the dead end of doping debate.

 

[TheSpud]

So, another interesting topic forced down the Sky toilet by the obsessed few.
This place has been made into the dead end of doping debate.

Sad to say so.

Anyway, to bring it back to the real issues, what i find really interesting about those responses is the number of MPCC teams who declined to answer (in many different ways). And as I mentioned earlier the OPQS answer is most peculiar.

 

[the sceptic]

So, another interesting topic forced down the Sky toilet by the obsessed few.
This place has been made into the dead end of doping debate.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread.

 

[ebandit]

He is right though isn't he....you just couldn't help yourself turning into all about Sky could you

Mark L

 

[Granville57]

didn't froome alone admit to more than 2 TUEs?

In his own words:

In six-and-a-half years of my career I've applied for two TUEs - the one this year in Romandie was the only one in competition. And I had one last year, I think after Romandie, when I had a similar kind of condition and took prednisone again.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html