CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[macbindle]

La la la la nothing to see here la la la la

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

So basically nothing new, other than the committee don't buy Brailsford's *** and state categorically that they believe Wiggins use of Kenacort was for performance enhancement and not to treat his poorly cough.

fuq it´s 1:30 am here and I waited this late for that?

But this is the opinion of MPs. These aren't those flakey experts like WADA. These are the opinions of the people that brought you Brexit and probably couldn't pick Peter Sagan out of line-up.

I get it, speaking about rules and possible broken rules, the Committee itself says no WADA rules broken.
the problem is in the UK, journalists, newspaper, public are the problem now. limelight on DB to step down

Yes. These are the same MPs who "broke no rules" in the expenses scandal.
There's a clear distinction between rule-breaking, and ethics-breaking.

as much as I dont like that but it is happening

J.Whittle: This leaves Brailsford more isolated than he has ever been. Having spoken so volubly and so often of his propriety and credibility, his position is now untenable and he must resign”

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

as much as I dont like that but it is happening

J.Whittle: This leaves Brailsford more isolated than he has ever been. Having spoken so volubly and so often of his propriety and credibility, his position is now untenable and he must resign”

Here's William Fotheringham saying exactly the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/05/team-sky-sir-dave-brailsford

...exactly one year ago to the day.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

So basically nothing new, other than the committee don't buy Brailsford's *** and state categorically that they believe Wiggins use of Kenacort was for performance enhancement and not to treat his poorly cough.

fuq it´s 1:30 am here and I waited this late for that?

But this is the opinion of MPs. These aren't those flakey experts like WADA. These are the opinions of the people that brought you Brexit and probably couldn't pick Peter Sagan out of line-up.

Why would they need to be able to pick Peter Sagan or any other rider for that matter? It is all about seeing through the BS of Team Sky. Period.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

"Within WADA rules".

So why are we here? No rules broken?

I think it's debatable whether this is within WADA rules. Article 2.5, which deals with tampering, includes “providing fraudulent information to an Anti-Doping Organization”. If the corticosteroids were used for PE effects like weight loss, then the information on the TUE form may be fraudulent. I think the problem is that it would be very difficult to prove this. You would need to show that the rider had no medical need for the substance, or a confession by someone that the substance was used for PE.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

So basically nothing new, other than the committee don't buy Brailsford's *** and state categorically that they believe Wiggins use of Kenacort was for performance enhancement and not to treat his poorly cough.

fuq it´s 1:30 am here and I waited this late for that?

But this is the opinion of MPs. These aren't those flakey experts like WADA. These are the opinions of the people that brought you Brexit and probably couldn't pick Peter Sagan out of line-up.

Too ... feckin ... funny ... for words! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, because a Swiss lawyer (*** Pound may as well be Swiss) on behalf of the IOC's commercial interests or WADA's quest for funding would be better. MPs are no more fallible than most of us (i.e. very) and are probably better able to relate to the poor character of those they are looking into. It's pretty rich to complain about your representation but at the same time denigrate one of the areas where your Parliament is at its most representative.

 

[53*11]

http://www.offtheball.com/Other-Sports/The-revelations-in-this-report-will-kill-Team-Sky--Matt-Lawton-on-doping-report
matt lawtons take, his stand out quote in the report is suttons admission that wiggins use of triamcinalone was unethical.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Surely the highlighted section is for the authorities to decide, not the applicant? Not just the authorities who grant or deny the TUE, but the ones who make the rules in the first place, ie whats banned and what is not, or what has PE benefits and what doesnt.

This is what has puzzled me for a while about corticosteroids....if they really are such a 'powerful steroid' (the now common term of reference in the media) with such great performance enhancing benefits, why on earth are they not just banned outright. No TUE, no OOC use allowed? Sure they have a medical use, but so do lots of other banned products, and as has been often pointed out, there are similar less powerful medicines about that can do a similar job.

We have a long history of 'abuse' in cycling, we have people like David Millar (not that i trust a word that man says) saying it's more powerful than EPO, and now we have the media fury saying that effectively he won the TDF by using it.

Far less potent (apparently) drugs make it onto the banned list, so why is this still allowed?

 

[jarvo]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Surely the highlighted section is for the authorities to decide, not the applicant? Not just the authorities who grant or deny the TUE, but the ones who make the rules in the first place, ie whats banned and what is not, or what has PE benefits and what doesnt.

This is what has puzzled me for a while about corticosteroids....if they really are such a 'powerful steroid' (the now common term of reference in the media) with such great performance enhancing benefits, why on earth are they not just banned outright. No TUE, no OOC use allowed? Sure they have a medical use, but so do lots of other banned products, and as has been often pointed out, there are similar less powerful medicines about that can do a similar job.

We have a long history of 'abuse' in cycling, we have people like David Millar (not that i trust a word that man says) saying it's more powerful than EPO, and now we have the media fury saying that effectively he won the TDF by using it.

Far less potent (apparently) drugs make it onto the banned list, so why is this still allowed?

This is what confuses me also. If Triamcinalone is such a wonder drug with such PE qualities, how is it not totally banned?

WHy is there no uproar as to the TUE's being granted, this fact seems to always be swept under the carpet. Its not like Sky and Wiggins were taking stuff, filling out paperwork and that is that. They got medical approval from a committee of medical experts to administer the Triamcinalone, why is the TUE system and committee not being investigated if this is such a big scandal?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Surely the highlighted section is for the authorities to decide, not the applicant? Not just the authorities who grant or deny the TUE, but the ones who make the rules in the first place, ie whats banned and what is not, or what has PE benefits and what doesnt.

This is what has puzzled me for a while about corticosteroids....if they really are such a 'powerful steroid' (the now common term of reference in the media) with such great performance enhancing benefits, why on earth are they not just banned outright. No TUE, no OOC use allowed? Sure they have a medical use, but so do lots of other banned products, and as has been often pointed out, there are similar less powerful medicines about that can do a similar job.

We have a long history of 'abuse' in cycling, we have people like David Millar (not that i trust a word that man says) saying it's more powerful than EPO, and now we have the media fury saying that effectively he won the TDF by using it.

Far less potent (apparently) drugs make it onto the banned list, so why is this still allowed?

This from the DCMS report (which I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read) quoting the CIRC report (ditto):

"One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve without assistance, and that TUEs are used to enable this practice. He stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off, without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI World Tour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that group’s management"

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

The OOC use is important in that it shows Wiggins, Freeman and whoever else viewed triamcinolone as a performance enhancer:

Bradley Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team. The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season. This same source also states that Bradley Wiggins was using these drugs beyond the requirement for any TUE.

Therefore applying for a TUE was done in bad faith as they knew that it shouldn't be granted given 4.1(b). Yet they still applied for it because they knew that the one-man panel consisted of Zorzoli.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Because that's one of the hardest things there is to actually prove. The TUE was for a single (possibly 2?) injection. It is unlikely that its going to have additional enhancement if he has an actual medical need for it. Of course, if it was the nth injection on a weight loss course that's a completely different matter. But with no records and doctor/patient confidentiality it's pretty much impossible to know if that was the case unless Brad spills the beans or someone has some actual proof.

 

[jarvo]

Without revealing the source and no hard evidence other than testimony this is just a he said she said scenario, surely credibility to these claims comes with highlighting who actually made the claims as the unknown expert witness? Without a name you can't then assess the credibility of the individual making the claim. Did they have an axe to grind against Wiggins and Sky etc? without knowing the 'whistleblower' you can never make a judgement on if their claims are true

Just seems like another bungled mess by our MP's

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

The OOC use is important in that it shows Wiggins, Freeman and whoever else viewed triamcinolone as a performance enhancer:

Bradley Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team. The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season. This same source also states that Bradley Wiggins was using these drugs beyond the requirement for any TUE.

Therefore applying for a TUE was done in bad faith as they knew that it shouldn't be granted given 4.1(b). Yet they still applied for it because they knew that the one-man panel consisted of Zorzoli.

Whether they viewed it as a PED is assumption. Probably a fair one but again, not something that can be proven at the moment.

Again, unless Wiggins admits this or the source has actual evidence then this is nothing but conjecture on our parts. My point still stands, the report has drawn about as damning a picture as they can.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Without revealing the source and no hard evidence other than testimony this is just a he said she said scenario, surely credibility to these claims comes with highlighting who actually made the claims as the unknown expert witness? Without a name you can't then assess the credibility of the individual making the claim. Did they have an axe to grind against Wiggins and Sky etc? without knowing the 'whistleblower' you can never make a judgement on if their claims are true

Just seems like another bungled mess by our MP's

This isn't fair in my opinion. The evidence given to the committee seems well considered and their final report seems the harshest but a fair reading of it. The anonymity of whistleblowers should always be protected where it can be.

 

[jarvo]

Re: Re:

Without revealing the source and no hard evidence other than testimony this is just a he said she said scenario, surely credibility to these claims comes with highlighting who actually made the claims as the unknown expert witness? Without a name you can't then assess the credibility of the individual making the claim. Did they have an axe to grind against Wiggins and Sky etc? without knowing the 'whistleblower' you can never make a judgement on if their claims are true

Just seems like another bungled mess by our MP's

This isn't fair in my opinion. The evidence given to the committee seems well considered and their final report seems the harshest but a fair reading of it. The anonymity of whistleblowers should always be protected where it can be.

But the report seems completely contradictory. How can you say that they acted within the WADA rules but also administered the drugs for performance enhancement? Are they suggesting WADA is broken? if so that is a much bigger deal than just Team Sky and cycling

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Because that's one of the hardest things there is to actually prove. The TUE was for a single (possibly 2?) injection. It is unlikely that its going to have additional enhancement if he has an actual medical need for it. Of course, if it was the nth injection on a weight loss course that's a completely different matter. But with no records and doctor/patient confidentiality it's pretty much impossible to know if that was the case unless Brad spills the beans or someone has some actual proof.

Sutton has confirmed that Wiggo's TUEs were unethical. How's that for proof? The beans have been spilled. The TUEs were for unethical performance enhancement which under 4.1.b is illegal

And for good measure Wiggo's TUEs also trip over 4.1.a. Freeman also applied for a triamcinolene TUE for Wiggo ahead of the 2013 Tour of Britain which was blocked by Farrell when he found out. Wiggo won that race so clearly the withholding of the prohibited substance did not cause a significant impairment to health

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Surely the highlighted section is for the authorities to decide, not the applicant? Not just the authorities who grant or deny the TUE, but the ones who make the rules in the first place, ie whats banned and what is not, or what has PE benefits and what doesnt.

This is what has puzzled me for a while about corticosteroids....if they really are such a 'powerful steroid' (the now common term of reference in the media) with such great performance enhancing benefits, why on earth are they not just banned outright. No TUE, no OOC use allowed? Sure they have a medical use, but so do lots of other banned products, and as has been often pointed out, there are similar less powerful medicines about that can do a similar job.

We have a long history of 'abuse' in cycling, we have people like David Millar (not that i trust a word that man says) saying it's more powerful than EPO, and now we have the media fury saying that effectively he won the TDF by using it.

Far less potent (apparently) drugs make it onto the banned list, so why is this still allowed?

This from the DCMS report (which I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read) quoting the CIRC report (ditto):

"One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve without assistance, and that TUEs are used to enable this practice. He stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off, without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI World Tour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that group’s management"

WP, i think you misinterpret where i'm coming from......i did read the report. I do think there is some sensationalism about just how 'powerful' the drug is, but at the same time there can surely be no doubt, even before this report, that there are significant PE benefits to using this class of drugs. Just based on the long and well documented use in cycling you have to believe it should be classed as a PED.

The report just confirms what most people have taken as fact for a long time already.

So, back to my original question...why wasn't it banned years ago, in and out of competition. Full stop. No TUE's?

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

The OOC use is important in that it shows Wiggins, Freeman and whoever else viewed triamcinolone as a performance enhancer:

Bradley Wiggins and a smaller group of riders trained separately from the rest of the team. The source said they were all using corticosteroids out of competition to lean down in preparation for the major races that season. This same source also states that Bradley Wiggins was using these drugs beyond the requirement for any TUE.

Therefore applying for a TUE was done in bad faith as they knew that it shouldn't be granted given 4.1(b). Yet they still applied for it because they knew that the one-man panel consisted of Zorzoli.

Whether they viewed it as a PED is assumption. Probably a fair one but again, not something that can be proven at the moment.

Again, unless Wiggins admits this or the source has actual evidence then this is nothing but conjecture on our parts. My point still stands, the report has drawn about as damning a picture as they can.

So why were they using corticosteroids during training camps? There is no other purpose apart from performance enhancement.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Because that's one of the hardest things there is to actually prove. The TUE was for a single (possibly 2?) injection. It is unlikely that its going to have additional enhancement if he has an actual medical need for it. Of course, if it was the nth injection on a weight loss course that's a completely different matter. But with no records and doctor/patient confidentiality it's pretty much impossible to know if that was the case unless Brad spills the beans or someone has some actual proof.

Sutton has confirmed that Wiggo's TUEs were unethical. How's that for proof? The beans have been spilled. The TUEs were for unethical performance enhancement which under 4.1.b is illegal

And for good measure Wiggo's TUEs also trip over 4.1.a. Freeman also applied for a triamcinolene TUE for Wiggo ahead of the 2013 Tour of Britain which was blocked by Farrell when he found out. Wiggo won that race so clearly the withholding of the prohibited substance did not cause a significant impairment to health

Pretty terrible actually. Why are you taking Sutton's word over Wiggins? Evidence? Sure. proof? No.

You're not Wiggin's doctor or a member of Team Sky staff are you? Do you think winning the Tour of Britain is the same as the Tour De France? Do you think pollen counts are as high in Britain at the end of September as they are in July in rural France? Do you know that he didn't suffer any impairment? I certainly don't and I wouldn't make those assumptions. It seems that the DCMS committee didn't want to either.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Floyd makes a valid point that the DCMS report's "unethical but not illegal" conclusion is a nonsense. Either Wiggo was ill and the TUE was valid. Or Wiggo was not ill, the TUE was for performance enhancement, and is therefore invalidated. There is no third way!

Of course WADA (and/or the UCI) are not, as Floyd suggests, going to open that can of worms. But the DCMS report has pulled its punches by inventing the "unethical but not illegal" third way

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landis-i-cant-see-team-sky-surviving-to-the-tour-de-france/

"I don't know why, in the report, they said that there was no doping violation. For me it absolutely falls into that category, by the very definition," Landis said. "They used it for performance enhancement and there's no ambiguity there. Wiggins should lose his Tour title. I can't see how the sport authorities can let it slide. You can't take them seriously if they don't act. There's a report right there for them, and for me WADA have no choice but to suspend him and take his title away. If they were legitimate, that's what they'd do."

there is a third option. Wiggins was ill and needed treatment but the Docs decided on a treatment that both worked medically and likely would improve performance. Personally I think that's how the committee sees it based on this paragraph:

110.From the evidence that has been received by the Committee regarding the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky during the period under investigation, and particularly in 2012, we believe that this powerful corticosteroid was being used to prepare Bradley Wiggins, and possibly other riders supporting him, for the Tour de France. The purpose of this was not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race. The application for the TUE for the triamcinolone for Bradley Wiggins, ahead of the 2012 Tour de France, also meant that he benefited from the performance enhancing properties of this drug during the race. This does not constitute a violation of the WADA code, but it does cross the ethical line that David Brailsford says he himself drew for Team Sky. In this case, and contrary to the testimony of David Brailsford in front of the Committee, we believe that drugs were being used by Team Sky, within the WADA rules, to enhance the performance of riders, and not just to treat medical need.

Unless Wiggins comes forward and admits it I don't see how they can draw any other conclusion to be honest.

So how do you square that off with 4.1.b below?

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/18/32/00/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral_English.pdf

4.1 A Rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following
conditions is met:
a. The Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method in question is needed to treat an acute
or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant
impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be
withheld.
b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is highly unlikely
to produce any additional enhancement of performance beyond what might be
anticipated by a return to the Rider’s normal state of health following the treatment
of the acute or chronic medical condition.
c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the Prohibited Substance
or Prohibited Method.
d. The necessity for the Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not a
consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use (without a TUE) of a substance or
method which was prohibited at the time of such Use.

Because that's one of the hardest things there is to actually prove. The TUE was for a single (possibly 2?) injection. It is unlikely that its going to have additional enhancement if he has an actual medical need for it. Of course, if it was the nth injection on a weight loss course that's a completely different matter. But with no records and doctor/patient confidentiality it's pretty much impossible to know if that was the case unless Brad spills the beans or someone has some actual proof.

Sutton has confirmed that Wiggo's TUEs were unethical. How's that for proof? The beans have been spilled. The TUEs were for unethical performance enhancement which under 4.1.b is illegal

And for good measure Wiggo's TUEs also trip over 4.1.a. Freeman also applied for a triamcinolene TUE for Wiggo ahead of the 2013 Tour of Britain which was blocked by Farrell when he found out. Wiggo won that race so clearly the withholding of the prohibited substance did not cause a significant impairment to health

You're doing a lot of drilling, WP, ... but any good miner would tell you that so far ... you really haven't got much ... that would classify as paydirt. Soldier on, bro. You've got the time.