CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[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.

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

If the source is telling the truth, allergies affect people whenever. I'm not defending Sky here, I'm also pretty certain they were cheating. I'm just saying there is not enough evidence for either the DCMS committee or the UCI/WADA to outright accuse them of it.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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.

There is no way WADA or the UCI are going to open an anti-doping case in respect of Wiggo's TUEs. And even if they did then I agree such a case would fail for evidential reasons. Unless Wiggo himself confesses which isn't going to happen during the 10 year SoL period

Not that Wiggo would be viewed as a reliable witness if WADA/the UCI threw the book at him. In his 2012 book he said he'd never had an injection. The Fancy Bears showed otherwise. Now Wiggo's saying he only had the injections allowed by the TUEs. And not at Kenalog training camps. Whatever, Bradley, whatever

And back to where I came in. The DCMS report is wrong to suggest Wiggo's TUEs were unethical but not illegal. Rule 4.1.b simply doesn't allow for such a distinction to be made. If there's performance enhancement that's both unethical and illegal. Simples

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

There is no way WADA or the UCI are going to open an anti-doping case in respect of Wiggo's TUEs. And even if they did then I agree such a case would fail for evidential reasons. Unless Wiggo himself confesses which isn't going to happen during the 10 year SoL period

Not that Wiggo would be viewed as a reliable witness if WADA/the UCI threw the book at him. In his 2012 book he said he'd never had an injection. The Fancy Bears showed otherwise. Now Wiggo's saying he only had the injections allowed by the TUEs. And not at Kenalog training camps. Whatever, Bradley, whatever

And back to where I came in. The DCMS report is wrong to suggest Wiggo's TUEs were unethical but not illegal. Rule 4.1.b simply doesn't allow for such a distinction to be made. If there's performance enhancement that's both unethical and illegal. Simples

Rule 4.1.b points out, specifically, that there will be performance enhancement and even allows for this to raise a riders level to that which is above their natural level. It's whether it is over and above that once the rider returns to full health that creates the grey area. Arguably, medication can be used that will raise a rider above their expected level during treatment, as long as they return after treatment. Maybe it is this grey area that the committee believes is unethical? Ethics do not necessarily follow the rules and I don't believe the committee have fully stated their position on this. Maybe they think that this should not be allowed?

 

[53*11]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bradley-wiggins-i-cant-change-the-last-five-years/

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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.

There is no way WADA or the UCI are going to open an anti-doping case in respect of Wiggo's TUEs. And even if they did then I agree such a case would fail for evidential reasons. Unless Wiggo himself confesses which isn't going to happen during the 10 year SoL period

Not that Wiggo would be viewed as a reliable witness if WADA/the UCI threw the book at him. In his 2012 book he said he'd never had an injection. The Fancy Bears showed otherwise. Now Wiggo's saying he only had the injections allowed by the TUEs. And not at Kenalog training camps. Whatever, Bradley, whatever

And back to where I came in. The DCMS report is wrong to suggest Wiggo's TUEs were unethical but not illegal. Rule 4.1.b simply doesn't allow for such a distinction to be made. If there's performance enhancement that's both unethical and illegal. Simples

Rule 4.1.b points out, specifically, that there will be performance enhancement and even allows for this to raise a riders level to that which is above their natural level. It's whether it is over and above that once the rider returns to full health that creates the grey area. Arguably, medication can be used that will raise a rider above their expected level during treatment, as long as they return after treatment. Maybe it is this grey area that the committee believes is unethical? Ethics do not necessarily follow the rules and I don't believe the committee have fully stated their position on this. Maybe they think that this should not be allowed?

With respect, that is an unfortunate and incorrect interpretation of Rule 4.1.b (repeated below for ease of reference). Please don't ever apply for a position on the UCI's panel of three doctors who sign off TUEs!

"4.1.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"

In essence, your "performance enhancement is allowed" interpretation permits anyone to drive a coach and horses through the rule's very clear intention that there should be a return to normal health without performance enhancement. Do not let the words "highly unlikely" distract you from the primary focus of the rule!

But driving a coach and horses through the rule is of course exactly what Team Sky did. Freeman hopped aboard with help from Leinders (who taught him everything he knew) and Zorzoli (Leinders' besty who facilitated it, Rasmussen's "butter wouldn't melt" quote, etc)

Or to put it another way, do you think today the UCI's panel of three TUE doctors would interpret Rule 4.1.b your way (i.e. "performance enhancement is allowed")? IMO the answer to that question lies in the huge reduction of TUEs granted since Zorzoli was finally forced out of the UCI and the introduction of the three doctors system (basically an acknowledgement that one doctor alone cannot be trusted to do the right thing)

To conclude, the only reason rules were for a brief period interpreted your way is that the UCI's gatekeeper Zorzoli was corrupt and Team Sky knew how to game the system via Leinders. But that interpretation was not correct. Look what a mess the sport is in right now for more evidence of that

 

[Wiggo's Package]

For King Boonen, from the DCMS report, on Sky gaming the TUE system for performance enhancement

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/366.pdf:

'The Committee also received a written statement from a whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous, from Team Sky, which we published in April 2017. The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation. The whistleblower also raised the issue of the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky, stating that they “believe that TUE’s were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance. At that time there were regular rider review meetings and all details of the rider were discussed, medical confidentiality was waived (this is common practice in sport) and the seriousness of Brad’s allergies were not discussed. The use of the triamcinolone acetonide was never discussed in these meetings however it had been discussed outside of the rider review meetings as a general discussion, because it had been used for years in cycling and the consensus was it would be inappropriate to use.” '

 

[Wiggo's Package]

And more:

'It is clear from the evidence the Committee has considered that the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) system is open to abuse. The assessment of medical need has been based too closely on trying to achieve a peak level of physical condition in the athlete, rather than returning them to a normal state of health. In the period up to 2014, when TUEs could be granted based on the assessment of the team doctor, and a single doctor at the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the potential for abuse in the system was even greater. We welcome the reforms made by WADA since this time, to create clearer guidelines and requirements before a TUE can be issued. The TUE system needs to be kept under permanent review, but the question inevitably remains, that if an athlete is so ill that they can only compete using a drug that is otherwise banned during competition, then
why are they competing at all?'

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

There is no way WADA or the UCI are going to open an anti-doping case in respect of Wiggo's TUEs. And even if they did then I agree such a case would fail for evidential reasons. Unless Wiggo himself confesses which isn't going to happen during the 10 year SoL period

Not that Wiggo would be viewed as a reliable witness if WADA/the UCI threw the book at him. In his 2012 book he said he'd never had an injection. The Fancy Bears showed otherwise. Now Wiggo's saying he only had the injections allowed by the TUEs. And not at Kenalog training camps. Whatever, Bradley, whatever

And back to where I came in. The DCMS report is wrong to suggest Wiggo's TUEs were unethical but not illegal. Rule 4.1.b simply doesn't allow for such a distinction to be made. If there's performance enhancement that's both unethical and illegal. Simples

Rule 4.1.b points out, specifically, that there will be performance enhancement and even allows for this to raise a riders level to that which is above their natural level. It's whether it is over and above that once the rider returns to full health that creates the grey area. Arguably, medication can be used that will raise a rider above their expected level during treatment, as long as they return after treatment. Maybe it is this grey area that the committee believes is unethical? Ethics do not necessarily follow the rules and I don't believe the committee have fully stated their position on this. Maybe they think that this should not be allowed?

With respect, that is an unfortunate and incorrect interpretation of Rule 4.1.b (repeated below for ease of reference). Please don't ever apply for a position on the UCI's panel of three doctors who sign off TUEs!

"4.1.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"

In essence, your "performance enhancement is allowed" interpretation permits anyone to drive a coach and horses through the rule's very clear intention that there should be a return to normal health without performance enhancement. Do not let the words "highly unlikely" distract you from the primary focus of the rule!

But driving a coach and horses through the rule is of course exactly what Team Sky did. Freeman hopped aboard with help from Leinders (who taught him everything he knew) and Zorzoli (Leinders' besty who facilitated it, Rasmussen's "butter wouldn't melt" quote, etc)

Or to put it another way, do you think today the UCI's panel of three TUE doctors would interpret Rule 4.1.b your way (i.e. "performance enhancement is allowed")? IMO the answer to that question lies in the huge reduction of TUEs granted since Zorzoli was finally forced out of the UCI and the introduction of the three doctors system (basically an acknowledgement that one doctor alone cannot be trusted to do the right thing)

To conclude, the only reason rules were for a brief period interpreted your way is that the UCI's gatekeeper Zorzoli was corrupt and Team Sky knew how to game the system via Leinders. But that interpretation was not correct. Look what a mess the sport is in right now for more evidence of that

With respect, I'll stick with my interpretation. the fact it allows you to game the system is the very problem we are discussing here. I'm fully aware of what the point of the rule is, I'm also fully aware that it is pretty much impossible to determine the likely impact of several medications used under TUE on performance of an individual athlete. This is the essence of the problem with the TUE system and the "grey area" people have a problem with.

For King Boonen, from the DCMS report, on Sky gaming the TUE system for performance enhancement

Edited by KB: Link deleted as skimlinks doesn't seem to work in quotes.

'The Committee also received a written statement from a whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous, from Team Sky, which we published in April 2017. The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation. The whistleblower also raised the issue of the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky, stating that they “believe that TUE’s were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance. At that time there were regular rider review meetings and all details of the rider were discussed, medical confidentiality was waived (this is common practice in sport) and the seriousness of Brad’s allergies were not discussed. The use of the triamcinolone acetonide was never discussed in these meetings however it had been discussed outside of the rider review meetings as a general discussion, because it had been used for years in cycling and the consensus was it would be inappropriate to use.” '

Believe is different to know. I still contend they made the strongest statement they could without opening themselves up to action.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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.

There is no way WADA or the UCI are going to open an anti-doping case in respect of Wiggo's TUEs. And even if they did then I agree such a case would fail for evidential reasons. Unless Wiggo himself confesses which isn't going to happen during the 10 year SoL period

Not that Wiggo would be viewed as a reliable witness if WADA/the UCI threw the book at him. In his 2012 book he said he'd never had an injection. The Fancy Bears showed otherwise. Now Wiggo's saying he only had the injections allowed by the TUEs. And not at Kenalog training camps. Whatever, Bradley, whatever

And back to where I came in. The DCMS report is wrong to suggest Wiggo's TUEs were unethical but not illegal. Rule 4.1.b simply doesn't allow for such a distinction to be made. If there's performance enhancement that's both unethical and illegal. Simples

Rule 4.1.b points out, specifically, that there will be performance enhancement and even allows for this to raise a riders level to that which is above their natural level. It's whether it is over and above that once the rider returns to full health that creates the grey area. Arguably, medication can be used that will raise a rider above their expected level during treatment, as long as they return after treatment. Maybe it is this grey area that the committee believes is unethical? Ethics do not necessarily follow the rules and I don't believe the committee have fully stated their position on this. Maybe they think that this should not be allowed?

With respect, that is an unfortunate and incorrect interpretation of Rule 4.1.b (repeated below for ease of reference). Please don't ever apply for a position on the UCI's panel of three doctors who sign off TUEs!

"4.1.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"

In essence, your "performance enhancement is allowed" interpretation permits anyone to drive a coach and horses through the rule's very clear intention that there should be a return to normal health without performance enhancement. Do not let the words "highly unlikely" distract you from the primary focus of the rule!

But driving a coach and horses through the rule is of course exactly what Team Sky did. Freeman hopped aboard with help from Leinders (who taught him everything he knew) and Zorzoli (Leinders' besty who facilitated it, Rasmussen's "butter wouldn't melt" quote, etc)

Or to put it another way, do you think today the UCI's panel of three TUE doctors would interpret Rule 4.1.b your way (i.e. "performance enhancement is allowed")? IMO the answer to that question lies in the huge reduction of TUEs granted since Zorzoli was finally forced out of the UCI and the introduction of the three doctors system (basically an acknowledgement that one doctor alone cannot be trusted to do the right thing)

To conclude, the only reason rules were for a brief period interpreted your way is that the UCI's gatekeeper Zorzoli was corrupt and Team Sky knew how to game the system via Leinders. But that interpretation was not correct. Look what a mess the sport is in right now for more evidence of that

With respect, I'll stick with my interpretation. the fact it allows you to game the system is the very problem we are discussing here. I'm fully aware of what the point of the rule is, I'm also fully aware that it is pretty much impossible to determine the likely impact of several medications used under TUE on performance of an individual athlete. This is the essence of the problem with the TUE system and the "grey area" people have a problem with.

For King Boonen, from the DCMS report, on Sky gaming the TUE system for performance enhancement

Edited by KB: Link deleted as skimlinks doesn't seem to work in quotes.

'The Committee also received a written statement from a whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous, from Team Sky, which we published in April 2017. The identity of this person is known to us; they are well respected within the cycling community and held a senior position at Team Sky at the time of the events under investigation. The whistleblower also raised the issue of the use of triamcinolone at Team Sky, stating that they “believe that TUE’s were used tactically by the team to support the health of a rider with an ultimate aim of supporting performance. At that time there were regular rider review meetings and all details of the rider were discussed, medical confidentiality was waived (this is common practice in sport) and the seriousness of Brad’s allergies were not discussed. The use of the triamcinolone acetonide was never discussed in these meetings however it had been discussed outside of the rider review meetings as a general discussion, because it had been used for years in cycling and the consensus was it would be inappropriate to use.” '

Believe is different to know. I still contend they made the strongest statement they could without opening themselves up to action.

I guess we're getting to the point of just going round in circles :razz:

But, to repeat, it's not the rule which allowed the system to be gamed. Because the rule hasn't changed. And yet the system isn't being gamed anymore

It was the gatekeeper of the rule, Zorzoli, who allowed the system to be gamed. In conjunction with a team which learnt from Leinders how to game the system

Btw, I meant it when I said please don't ever apply for a position on the panel of doctors who sign off TUEs!

 

[King Boonen]

How would you know the system isn't being gamed exactly?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

How would you know the system isn't being gamed exactly?

On triamcinolene specifically:

http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/therapeutic-use-exemptions/

'Local injection of glucocorticoids - “8-days rest period”

In case of a local injection of glucocorticoids, which is subject also to the Anti-Doping Rules and the Prohibited List, the rider must rest and is prevented from competing for 8 days (article 13.3.055 of the UCI Regulations).'

And the overall trend for TUEs is down especially since Zorzoli's dodginess became too hard for the UCI to ignore:

'Number of TUEs granted annually by the UCI

Year - TUEs granted
2009 - 239
2010 - 97
2011 - 55
2012 - 46
2013 - 31
2014 - 25
2015 - 13
2016 - 15
2017 - 20'

 

[King Boonen]

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

From the TUE rules:

4.4.3 A Rider who is an International-Level Rider must apply to the UCI for a TUE.

An International Level Rider is anyone listed on the UCI Registered Testing Pool, which has about 1300 names on it, including all male World Tour and Procontinental riders.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

Parker answered the Reg 2 bit. There's a comprehensive list on the UCI website. The system can still be gamed. It might be tightening up, sure, but I'll bet people are still abusing it.

I'm afraid I don't. I think I've looked in the past and couldn't even find total number of TUEs UKAD have issued.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what "local injection" means or implies here. To my mind, it would be a pain killing injection to a joint etc. In which case I don't think it covers Wiggins. I really don't know about that though.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

From the TUE rules:

4.4.3 A Rider who is an International-Level Rider must apply to the UCI for a TUE.

An International Level Rider is anyone listed on the UCI Registered Testing Pool, which has about 1300 names on it, including all male World Tour and Procontinental riders.

Thanks

So all the top level pros have to apply to the UCI for a TUE

And if we're talking about gaming the TUE system then IMO we're only really talking about the top level pros

Who would have to get past the UCI's three doctors

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

Parker answered the Reg 2 bit. There's a comprehensive list on the UCI website. The system can still be gamed. It might be tightening up, sure, but I'll bet people are still abusing it.

I'm afraid I don't. I think I've looked in the past and couldn't even find total number of TUEs UKAD have issued.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what "local injection" means or implies here. To my mind, it would be a pain killing injection to a joint etc. In which case I don't think it covers Wiggins. I really don't know about that though.

There's a general figure for total TUEs in the WADA reports, but it's kind of meaningless as it is partly influenced by the number of people joining ADAMS.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

Parker answered the Reg 2 bit. There's a comprehensive list on the UCI website. The system can still be gamed. It might be tightening up, sure, but I'll bet people are still abusing it.

I'm afraid I don't. I think I've looked in the past and couldn't even find total number of TUEs UKAD have issued.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what "local injection" means or implies here. To my mind, it would be a pain killing injection to a joint etc. In which case I don't think it covers Wiggins. I really don't know about that though.

There's a general figure for total TUEs in the WADA reports, but it's kind of meaningless as it is partly influenced by the number of people joining ADAMS.

Thanks. I had a look in the one I have locally but didn't see that. If it's total it's pointless though.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

From the TUE rules:

4.4.3 A Rider who is an International-Level Rider must apply to the UCI for a TUE.

An International Level Rider is anyone listed on the UCI Registered Testing Pool, which has about 1300 names on it, including all male World Tour and Procontinental riders.

Thanks

So all the top level pros have to apply to the UCI for a TUE

And if we're talking about gaming the TUE system then IMO we're only really talking about the top level pros

Who would have to get past the UCI's three doctors

But the important point KB made here is all the ways the TUE system has changed, and all the substances/occasions you can get away without the TUE. (Take the Triamcinolone Wiggins used, he only needed a TUE for that as the glow time might have extended into the start of the Tour. It isn't tested for OOC, only IC.)

Consider this: in 2006, 12 of the 13 AAFs at the TdF could be explained by TUEs. 105 of the 176 starters were tested, 60% (63) had TUEs. In 2008, 76 of the 180 riders who started the TdF had TUEs. How have we gone from 76 TUEs in just the Tour in 2008 to 20 in all of cycling a decade later? Did the peloton get healthier over the last decade?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

Parker answered the Reg 2 bit. There's a comprehensive list on the UCI website. The system can still be gamed. It might be tightening up, sure, but I'll bet people are still abusing it.

I'm afraid I don't. I think I've looked in the past and couldn't even find total number of TUEs UKAD have issued.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what "local injection" means or implies here. To my mind, it would be a pain killing injection to a joint etc. In which case I don't think it covers Wiggins. I really don't know about that though.

Correct....local injection (intraarticular) is direct in joint. General (intramuscular) is what Wiggins TUE covered

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

And do you know if stats are available to show the number of TUEs granted to pro cyclists by individual NADOs annually? When it comes to grey areas the NADO could potentially be a good way to dodge the UCI's panel of three doctors!

Meantime, would you agree that the UCI's "no racing for 8 days after a glucocorticoid injection" rule should prevent any rider from being given a TUE for triamcinolene 2 days before a GT? Would be good to know just in case Wiggo and Freeman decide to come out of retirement :razz:

Parker answered the Reg 2 bit. There's a comprehensive list on the UCI website. The system can still be gamed. It might be tightening up, sure, but I'll bet people are still abusing it.

I'm afraid I don't. I think I've looked in the past and couldn't even find total number of TUEs UKAD have issued.

I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what "local injection" means or implies here. To my mind, it would be a pain killing injection to a joint etc. In which case I don't think it covers Wiggins. I really don't know about that though.

For sure every aspect of the anti-doping infrastructure is being poked for holes at all times by pretty much everyone involved in pro cycling [a sight exaggeration there - but only slight :razz: ]

But Wiggo's triamcinolene injections 2 days before his target GT 3 years in a row with the help of a complicit UCI doctor were a really egregious example of the system not just being gamed but being abused

And hopefully that loophole at least has been closed now. Although while non-MPCC teams can still benefit from out of competition triamcinolene training camps it seems like a small victory

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Consider this: in 2006, 12 of the 13 AAFs at the TdF could be explained by TUEs. 105 of the 176 starters were tested, 60% (63) had TUEs. In 2008, 76 of the 180 riders who started the TdF had TUEs. How have we gone from 76 TUEs in just the Tour in 2008 to 20 in all of cycling a decade later? Did the peloton get healthier over the last decade?

It's in large part because a TUE is no longer needed for salbutamol. In 2006 there were nearly 400 AAFs for salbutamol; in 2007 the number had dropped to about 60. There was another big decline from 2009, the last year a TUE was required, to 2010. The past two years there have been fifteen or so.

Those are numbers for all sports, but of course they reflect cycling specifically as well.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

You need to look into who is allowed to issue TUEs, it’s not just the UCI. It’s in the regulations you’ve quoted, 2C. You also need to see which substances are either added or removed from the prohibited list.

Thanks, that's interesting

Taking Reg 2 as a whole, it's not clear to me who can apply to a NADO for a TUE and who must apply to the UCI. Are you able to clarify?

From the TUE rules:

4.4.3 A Rider who is an International-Level Rider must apply to the UCI for a TUE.

An International Level Rider is anyone listed on the UCI Registered Testing Pool, which has about 1300 names on it, including all male World Tour and Procontinental riders.

Thanks

So all the top level pros have to apply to the UCI for a TUE

And if we're talking about gaming the TUE system then IMO we're only really talking about the top level pros

Who would have to get past the UCI's three doctors

But the important point KB made here is all the ways the TUE system has changed, and all the substances/occasions you can get away without the TUE. (Take the Triamcinolone Wiggins used, he only needed a TUE for that as the glow time might have extended into the start of the Tour. It isn't tested for OOC, only IC.)

Consider this: in 2006, 12 of the 13 AAFs at the TdF could be explained by TUEs. 105 of the 176 starters were tested, 60% (63) had TUEs. In 2008, 76 of the 180 riders who started the TdF had TUEs. How have we gone from 76 TUEs in just the Tour in 2008 to 20 in all of cycling a decade later? Did the peloton get healthier over the last decade?

IIRC the big drop can be explained by the change in 2009 under which a TUE was no longer required for salbutamol

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Consider this: in 2006, 12 of the 13 AAFs at the TdF could be explained by TUEs. 105 of the 176 starters were tested, 60% (63) had TUEs. In 2008, 76 of the 180 riders who started the TdF had TUEs. How have we gone from 76 TUEs in just the Tour in 2008 to 20 in all of cycling a decade later? Did the peloton get healthier over the last decade?

The change of status of Salbutamol accounts for a lot of it. It hasn't required a TUE since 2010(?). But there's also clearly been a change in attitudes and drop (elimination even) of abuse.

 

[MartinGT]

All I have read on my social timelime

'Bloody MP's how are they able to to talk about corruption' etc.

Yes, yes, its the pesky MP's FFS