CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Thanks. I had a look in the one I have locally but didn't see that. If it's total it's pointless though.
Actually, I've just looked at it again and it's even worse than useless. It's in the Annual Report. Some years it's a total figure for TUEs in the system, some years it's a percentage increase and some years it's the number of new TUEs added. Some of the narrative around it can be helpful to read, but not the numbers.
 
I actually thought the question was rhetorical. But...

Here's a point to consider, for everyone saying "Oh, that's just because they took out salbutamol."

Why did they take out salbutamol? Largely, it seems, because it was an administrative headache. It was throwing up all these AAFs that had to be investigated, and it was creating all this paperwork that had to be filled in, really, it was all just so much hassle. So they took out the TUE and upped the allowed limits...

Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
I actually thought the question was rhetorical. But...

Here's a point to consider, for everyone saying "Oh, that's just because they took out salbutamol."

Why did they take out salbutamol? Largely, it seems, because it was an administrative headache. It was throwing up all these AAFs that had to be investigated, and it was creating all this paperwork that had to be filled in, really, it was all just so much hassle. So they took out the TUE and upped the allowed limits...

Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.

Umm, salabutamol from a puffer is not a PED

Injected or tablet form salbutamol is a PED

That's why there's a 2,000 limit
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
I actually thought the question was rhetorical. But...

Here's a point to consider, for everyone saying "Oh, that's just because they took out salbutamol."

Why did they take out salbutamol? Largely, it seems, because it was an administrative headache. It was throwing up all these AAFs that had to be investigated, and it was creating all this paperwork that had to be filled in, really, it was all just so much hassle. So they took out the TUE and upped the allowed limits...

Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.

Umm, salabutamol from a puffer is not a PED

Injected or tablet form salbutamol is a PED

That's why there's a 2,000 limit
Good point, well made, and let's add that the test can distinguish between the two methods of entry into the system. (I'm sure it can, least ways surely it must, I'll check later.)
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.
I'd say that in the allowable amounts inhaled Salbutamol doesn't fail any of the three tests

salbutamol injected or in macro amounts (>6mg) via pill, yes there is evidence for some PED effects, the reason there is a 1000ng limit in urine.
 
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.
I'd say that in the allowable amounts inhaled Salbutamol doesn't fail any of the three tests

salbutamol injected or in macro amounts (>6mg) via pill, yes there is evidence for some PED effects, the reason there is a 1000ng limit in urine.
Hence the inclusion of the word in bold.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.

I'd say that in the allowable amounts inhaled Salbutamol doesn't fail any of the three tests

Bingo! We have the inside line on the only facet of the many many faceted defence which Mike Morgan thinks might actually work. As they say in legal circles, good luck with that ;)

But maybe CAS will swallow the lure. At the ADT no chance. The Dawg gets a ban. Then burns another million fighting it. Ouchy :surprised:

But poor old Froomey we should pity him (although have we reached the point of pitying him yet - after today's presser I think not). Must be praying the contract with RCS for the Giro walk on fee holds up. Does the force majeure clause include AAFs...?

Heavy duty legal stuff bleeds even Monaco's finest dry. Ethical tax dodging (oxymoron deliberate) saves you only so much. Christ why did Brailsfraud cut the Dawg adrift on legal fees?! That is the question... :mad:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
Parker said:
fmk_RoI said:
Remember the three tests for banning a drug? Dangerous, a PED, and/or damaging to the image of sport? WADA added a fourth: it doesn't create too much paperwork.
I'd say that in the allowable amounts inhaled Salbutamol doesn't fail any of the three tests

salbutamol injected or in macro amounts (>6mg) via pill, yes there is evidence for some PED effects, the reason there is a 1000ng limit in urine.
Hence the inclusion of the word in bold.

just completing the picture for the avoidance of doubt! and since CF has, so far at least, not been able to explain how his 2000ng / 2 x the limit was achieved using inhaled salbutamol only, that leaves him with quite a problem wouldn't you say?
 
Re: Re:

53*11 said:
just completing the picture for the avoidance of doubt! and since CF has, so far at least, not been able to explain how his 2000ng / 2 x the limit was achieved using inhaled salbutamol only, that leaves him with quite a problem wouldn't you say?
I have no idea if he's been able to explain it. He's going to explain it to the authorities, not me.
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
53*11 said:
just completing the picture for the avoidance of doubt! and since CF has, so far at least, not been able to explain how his 2000ng / 2 x the limit was achieved using inhaled salbutamol only, that leaves him with quite a problem wouldn't you say?
I have no idea if he's been able to explain it. He's going to explain it to the authorities, not me.

LOL. he clearly cant explain it can he? otherwise he would have done so in the 3 months before the AAF was leaked and even more so in the 2 -3 months since then when media intrusion has heightened because of his intent to keep riding.
 
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.

I'll offer some advice to the lawyer...the same advice applies to prof Lipworth the condescending git who is obviously a froome fan...

Wiggins and SDB (and Froome) do not want too much (in fact any) light shone on the goings-on in the background...they do not want to be subject to the far more forensic questioning which would result from a JR...

please don't hold your breathe awaiting such a JR.....it will never happen

These guys maybe experts in their own field....but as to the murky goings on to become a GT winner, they are woefully ignorant...especially when it concerns two ex-donkeys.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.

A sports lawyer is pitching for business - quel surprise! And the repeated references to Sir Bradley and Sir David in lawyer's article are just the kind of deference that got us into this problem! Did this genuflecting lawyer not see how shifty Sir David was when the DCMS committee interviewed him?!

So the chances of Wiggo and Team Sky suing the DCMS committee are the same as the chances of them suing any of their other critics whether journalists or on social media. Ain't never gonna happen. Whatever the merits of any individual claim (and JR cases are difficult to make stick when you've been up to no good), it would be terrible PR. And they have enough PR problems already, eh
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Another legal opinion supporting JR as an appeal mechaniasm:
If challenging it, however I wonder whether JR on the basis of audi alterem partem might not be a better angle, Maguire v. Ardagh styleeee?
I'll leave the Clinic's QCs to look up the references themselves...

Did you miss the bit where I said JR is never gonna happen irrespective of the legal merits because the PR fall out would be terrible?
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.

A sports lawyer is pitching for business - quel surprise! And the repeated references to Sir Bradley and Sir David in lawyer's article are just the kind of deference that got us into this problem! Did this genuflecting lawyer not see how shifty Sir David was when the DCMS committee interviewed him?!

So the chances of Wiggo and Team Sky suing the DCMS committee are the same as the chances of them suing any of their other critics whether journalists or on social media. Ain't never gonna happen. Whatever the merits of any individual claim (and JR cases are difficult to make stick when you've been up to no good), it would be terrible PR. And they have enough PR problems already, eh

Not sure Wiggins has opportunity as both sides were presented. In fact all sides were presented. The DCMS didn’t make conclusions, only that possible ethical lines had been crossed. I’m not sure what Wiggins would be suing for and in reality he doesn’t want this can of worms opened any further than it has. Get him into court then he has to deal with the issue of evidential discovery.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
Another legal opinion supporting JR as an appeal mechaniasm:
If challenging it, however I wonder whether JR on the basis of audi alterem partem might not be a better angle, Maguire v. Ardagh styleeee?
I'll leave the Clinic's QCs to look up the references themselves...

Did you miss the bit where I said JR is never gonna happen irrespective of the legal merits because the PR fall out would be terrible?
You so funny, WP! The times are legion that you've ignored opinions that are divergent from you own and carried on regardless, and now here you are trying to shut down possible abstract debate of a relevant topic...just because you have spoken?

While I accept that such debate might cast a somewhat negative light on the DCMS report - might encourage people to believe it's not nearly as sound as some present it to be - what I don't get is that discussion of the JR option might also support an argument you and others are making. Since this latter point cannot be lost on you I am left wondering if you yourself don't in fact doubt its validity.
 
thehog said:
If one it to use Latin phrases at least spell them correctly and use in the appropriate context :cool:
The typo police making typos. Funny.

Was the offending Latin phrase presented as a quote, by any chance? Because that really would render the quote useless, wouldn't it?

Seriously, Hog, welcome back, but please, calm down already.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
fmk_RoI said:
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.

I'll offer some advice to the lawyer...the same advice applies to prof Lipworth the condescending git who is obviously a froome fan...

Wiggins and SDB (and Froome) do not want too much (in fact any) light shone on the goings-on in the background...they do not want to be subject to the far more forensic questioning which would result from a JR...

please don't hold your breathe awaiting such a JR.....it will never happen

These guys maybe experts in their own field....but as to the murky goings on to become a GT winner, they are woefully ignorant...especially when it concerns two ex-donkeys.

Agreed, I’d say this is the end of it. Matt Lawton on Twitter says to suggest there is more revelations to come but as far as the committee is concerned this is the end. Bear in mind it took a good 18 months to come this far! :arrow:
 
Reading the conclusion from the report it’s hard to disagree with the balance it provided. Even the most ardent Sky fan would agree there was resonable effort to present all sides. Some of it would have made for uncomfortable reading but I cannot see any passages which could be considered untrue.

Citing judicial review is pot stirring and simply not going to happen no matter how many random Latin phrases are cut and pasted into the reply box.

109.The Committee is not in a position to state what was in the package delivered to Team Sky by Simon Cope at La Toussuire on 12 June 2011. Dr Freeman has stated that it was Fluimucil, and an allegation was made to UKAD, and has been seen by the Committee, that says it was triamcinolone. We do not believe there is reliable evidence that it was Fluimucil as Dr Freeman will not now confirm it was and, previously, he was the only reported source of this information. The mystery surrounding the delivery of the package, and the extraordinary lengths to which Team Sky went to obtain an easily available drug delivered to them, have also fuelled speculation as to what the package might have contained. There remains no documented evidence as to what was in the package. If the package contained triamcinolone, which we know Bradley Wiggins, or his team, wanted him to take around 30 May 2011, and it was indeed taken, then the impacts and consequences on all concerned would have been profound. Team Sky’s statements that coaches and team managers are largely unaware of the methods used by the medical staff to prepare pro-cyclists for major races seem incredible, and inconsistent with their original aim of “winning clean”, and maintaining the highest ethical standards within their sport. How can David Brailsford ensure that his team is performing to his requirements, if he does not know and cannot tell, what drugs the doctors are giving the riders? David Brailsford must take responsibility for these failures, the regime under which Team Sky riders trained and competed and the damaging scepticism about the legitimacy of his team’s performance and accomplishments.

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.

111.The Committee has considered evidence about the performance-enhancing properties of corticosteroids, and how their use can be avoided in the treatment of long-term conditions such as asthma. We believe that WADA should introduce a complete ban on their use. We were also concerned to hear evidence about the negative health impacts for riders resulting from the abuse of the painkiller Tramadol. Again, we believe that WADA should consider introducing a ban on the use of Tramadol

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36606.htm#_idTextAnchor015
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
gillan1969 said:
fmk_RoI said:
A lawyer offers some free legal advice:
As the Report itself states, the DCMS Committee clearly felt the TUE system “is open to abuse”. Despite acknowledging that Sir Bradley applied for a TUE for triamcinolone in the proper way, and that this was approved by WADA, the DCMS Committee concluded that he had used it “not to treat medical need, but to improve his power to weight ratio ahead of the race”. In doing so Sir Bradley, and others at Team Sky, are accused of crossing the “ethical line”.

This is a powerful conclusion to draw and one that could be very damaging to the reputations of those involved. The DCMS Committee has the benefit of publishing its report with absolute privilege pursuant to s.1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 meaning Sir Bradley nor anyone else could sue for defamation even if they wanted to.

In the circumstances, it would appear unjust for the DCMS Committee not to have put the allegations, including details of who they came from, squarely to those who are criticised in the report in order to allow them the opportunity to rebut the same.

One potential avenue for Sir Bradley to explore would be to see whether it was possible to seek a Judicial Review of the Report on the basis that the DCMS Committee is a public body and should have properly disclosed all of the evidence it received, including details of where it came from, in order that those concerned could properly respond to it.

I'll offer some advice to the lawyer...the same advice applies to prof Lipworth the condescending git who is obviously a froome fan...

Wiggins and SDB (and Froome) do not want too much (in fact any) light shone on the goings-on in the background...they do not want to be subject to the far more forensic questioning which would result from a JR...

please don't hold your breathe awaiting such a JR.....it will never happen

These guys maybe experts in their own field....but as to the murky goings on to become a GT winner, they are woefully ignorant...especially when it concerns two ex-donkeys.

Agreed, I’d say this is the end of it. Matt Lawton on Twitter says to suggest there is more revelations to come but as far as the committee is concerned this is the end. Bear in mind it took a good 18 months to come this far! :arrow:

Popcorn!! :D
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
Another legal opinion supporting JR as an appeal mechaniasm:
If challenging it, however I wonder whether JR on the basis of audi alterem partem might not be a better angle, Maguire v. Ardagh styleeee?
I'll leave the Clinic's QCs to look up the references themselves...

Did you miss the bit where I said JR is never gonna happen irrespective of the legal merits because the PR fall out would be terrible?
You so funny, WP! The times are legion that you've ignored opinions that are divergent from you own and carried on regardless, and now here you are trying to shut down possible abstract debate of a relevant topic...just because you have spoken?

While I accept that such debate might cast a somewhat negative light on the DCMS report - might encourage people to believe it's not nearly as sound as some present it to be - what I don't get is that discussion of the JR option might also support an argument you and others are making. Since this latter point cannot be lost on you I am left wondering if you yourself don't in fact doubt its validity.

Did you see the David Foster Wallace reference on the other thread?

If our resident journo could try just a little bit harder that would be great, thanks

Both style and content clearly too much to ask

But just one of the two, maybe? ;)
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
fmk_RoI said:
Another legal opinion supporting JR as an appeal mechaniasm:
If challenging it, however I wonder whether JR on the basis of audi alterem partem might not be a better angle, Maguire v. Ardagh styleeee?
I'll leave the Clinic's QCs to look up the references themselves...

Did you miss the bit where I said JR is never gonna happen irrespective of the legal merits because the PR fall out would be terrible?
You so funny, WP! The times are legion that you've ignored opinions that are divergent from you own and carried on regardless, and now here you are trying to shut down possible abstract debate of a relevant topic...just because you have spoken?

While I accept that such debate might cast a somewhat negative light on the DCMS report - might encourage people to believe it's not nearly as sound as some present it to be - what I don't get is that discussion of the JR option might also support an argument you and others are making. Since this latter point cannot be lost on you I am left wondering if you yourself don't in fact doubt its validity.

Did you see the David Foster Wallace reference on the other thread?

If our resident journo could try just a little bit harder that would be great, thanks

Both style and content clearly too much to ask

But just one of the two, maybe? ;)
Is that really the best you can do WP? Play the man, not the ball ... by accusing me of journalism? Come on, please...just drop it, 'kay?