Dave Brailsford - cycling genius

[sniper]

Special Precautions:
•Patients suffering from Asthma.
•Subjects with past records of peptic ulceration.

Warning and precautions

Patients suffering from bronchial asthma must be strictly controlled during the therapy; should bronchospasm occur, the treatment must immediately be suspended. Caution should be taken in patient suffering from or with a history of peptic ulcer. The possible presence of a sulphurous odour does not indicate an alteration of the product but is a characteristic of the active ingredient contained in this preparation. It is preferable not to mix other drugs with the Fluimucil A solution.

"We trust our Doctors"

:lol:

Jeebus.

What kind of genius masterminded this?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

no "no needle policy" at Barloworld
no banned product
he even told it to Kimmage

no problem

Not a banned product so legally ok to use.

That's not actually true, it depends on "how" the drug was used and in what quantities.

Cant find anywhere that says Fluimucil is banned, regardless of use and quantity.

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

no "no needle policy" at Barloworld
no banned product
he even told it to Kimmage

no problem

Not a banned product so legally ok to use.

That's not actually true, it depends on "how" the drug was used and in what quantities.

Cant find anywhere that says Fluimucil is banned, regardless of use and quantity.

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

If you inject it during competition it's not "legally ok", spud. But you knew that.

Meanwhile it's waiting to see what B railsford will do with the Intel about that rival team abusing the TUE system. He has at least three options. CIRC. WADA. UKAD hotline.

Actually I didn't which is why I mentioned it. I don't see the product on the WADA banned list, and I cant find any link that mentions how it can / cant be used. Happy to read them if someone can provide them.

Now, if the point you're making is that it goes against their no needles policy then that's a different point - although I'm sure they would say its Meds and not recovery products.

...
Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

yet you didn't know about the no-needle policy?

you sound like brailsford "didn't know cortisone was performance enhancing".

as long as you like your own credibility, all is good i guess.

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

That study is junk.

Even if it was junk (because King Boonen said so in the interwebz), I found a dozen studies with different setups and all of them claimed a positive effect on either TTE, CP, recovery or recommended it for clinical use with anemic patients. I found none that claimed otherwise. My conclusion is: it helps quite a bit in trained endurance athletes and it's legal if administered orally.

 

[thehog]

Special Precautions:
•Patients suffering from Asthma.
•Subjects with past records of peptic ulceration.

Warning and precautions

Patients suffering from bronchial asthma must be strictly controlled during the therapy; should bronchospasm occur, the treatment must immediately be suspended. Caution should be taken in patient suffering from or with a history of peptic ulcer. The possible presence of a sulphurous odour does not indicate an alteration of the product but is a characteristic of the active ingredient contained in this preparation. It is preferable not to mix other drugs with the Fluimucil A solution.

"We trust our Doctors"

:lol:

Jeebus.

What kind of genius masterminded this?

Right before the Tour, we'll get Wiggins a drug that could flare up his asthma, then we'll inject him with a high grade steroid, all in the name of his ailing sickness whilst smashing the season apart and winning also every race he went in

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

That study is junk.

Even if it was junk (because King Boonen said so in the interwebz), I found a dozen studies with different setups and all of them claimed a positive effect on either TTE, CP, recovery or recommended it for clinical use with anemic patients. I found none that claimed otherwise. My conclusion is: it helps quite a bit in trained endurance athletes and it's legal if administered orally.

The study says so if you understand it.

You didn't find any studies with negative results? You don't work in science do you?

If that's your conclusion then pop down to your local Whole Foods/Holland and Barrett/Choice of shop that sells expensive urine ingredients, buy loads and smash everyone at your local crit.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

Whether it is available isn't the issue. The problem is that the No Needle policy only allows use of of needles if it is medically required and there is no alternative, non-needle version, that could be used. In this case there definitely is so I really hope it wasn't injected.

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

That study is junk.

Even if it was junk (because King Boonen said so in the interwebz), I found a dozen studies with different setups and all of them claimed a positive effect on either TTE, CP, recovery or recommended it for clinical use with anemic patients. I found none that claimed otherwise. My conclusion is: it helps quite a bit in trained endurance athletes and it's legal if administered orally.

The study says so if you understand it.

You didn't find any studies with negative results? You don't work in science do you?

If that's your conclusion then pop down to your local Whole Foods/Holland and Barrett/Choice of shop that sells expensive urine ingredients, buy loads and smash everyone at your local crit.

Find one and no.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

Whether it is available isn't the issue. The problem is that the No Needle policy only allows use of of needles if it is medically required and there is no alternative, non-needle version, that could be used. In this case there definitely is so I really hope it wasn't injected.

I guess that depends on whether the non IV version is as effective as the inhalation, or whatever version, in terms of whether that counts as an alternative.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

That study is junk.

Even if it was junk (because King Boonen said so in the interwebz), I found a dozen studies with different setups and all of them claimed a positive effect on either TTE, CP, recovery or recommended it for clinical use with anemic patients. I found none that claimed otherwise. My conclusion is: it helps quite a bit in trained endurance athletes and it's legal if administered orally.

The study says so if you understand it.

You didn't find any studies with negative results? You don't work in science do you?

If that's your conclusion then pop down to your local Whole Foods/Holland and Barrett/Choice of shop that sells expensive urine ingredients, buy loads and smash everyone at your local crit.

Find one and no.

It is almost impossible to publish negative results. It's hard enough to do it in human clinical drug trials and it's actually a massive problem that you can read a huge amount about from people like Ben Goldacre whose writing style is much more interesting than mine. It's resulted in people burying results, massaging data and pretty much doing everything they can to find something positive. So I'm really not surprised you couldn't find one.

Similarly, if you look, you'll find loads of studies on random things that apparently kill cancer, yet we still rely on the old favourites.

If you're really interested I'm covered the problems with the study in the Wiggins thread. The biggest problem is people taking the conclusions and using them out of context, rather than the study itself.

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

Whether it is available isn't the issue. The problem is that the No Needle policy only allows use of of needles if it is medically required and there is no alternative, non-needle version, that could be used. In this case there definitely is so I really hope it wasn't injected.

I guess that depends on whether the non IV version is as effective as the inhalation, or whatever version, in terms of whether that counts as an alternative.

Most clinical studies I found used the oral way of administration (powder dissolved in water) and found significant effects in what could be useful for athletes (similar what the Barloworld Doctor anecdotally claimed back then).

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

Whether it is available isn't the issue. The problem is that the No Needle policy only allows use of of needles if it is medically required and there is no alternative, non-needle version, that could be used. In this case there definitely is so I really hope it wasn't injected.

I guess that depends on whether the non IV version is as effective as the inhalation, or whatever version, in terms of whether that counts as an alternative.

Most clinical studies I found used the oral way of administration (powder dissolved in water) and found significant effects in what could be useful for athletes (similar what the Barloworld Doctor anecdotally claimed back then).

Right... So all those pros who went to amazing lengths to acquire EPO and inject themselves, removed pints of blood for autologous transfusions and got hold of blood from dodgy suppliers for homologous blood transfusions, risking their careers and their lives could instead have just popped down to Holland and Barrett and taken something that isn't even banned?

All those people who require EPO and transfusions could be treated much easier with this?

You see how crazy this is?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Fluimucil isn't banned, either in or out of competition. The UCI No Needle policy came into force around the 4th May 2011 ( http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy/ ) and this could arguably fall foul of that if it was injected.

Thank you - a nice simple straight forward answer.

Just googling its easy to see that Fluimucil is available as an IV preparation.

Whether it is available isn't the issue. The problem is that the No Needle policy only allows use of of needles if it is medically required and there is no alternative, non-needle version, that could be used. In this case there definitely is so I really hope it wasn't injected.

I guess that depends on whether the non IV version is as effective as the inhalation, or whatever version, in terms of whether that counts as an alternative.

It loosens mucus. You can almost defend BWs TUEs if the medical data backs it up but not that.

Also, after the needle ban came in all injections had to be registered. If that were the case surely they would have just said look at the UCI records?

 

[IndianCyclist]

std sky/DB dialogue - "what we use is not performance enhancing and it is all legal"
DB should have revealed the drug name earlier instead of panicking. Maybe change the title to "DB - cycling genius or idiot". i am leaning to the 2nd one. The drug is most likely something else. But There is no paper trail to prove anything.

 

[Mr.38%]

Re: Re:

Right... So all those pros who went to amazing lengths to acquire EPO and inject themselves, removed pints of blood for autologous transfusions and got hold of blood from dodgy suppliers for homologous blood transfusions, risking their careers and their lives could instead have just popped down to Holland and Barrett and taken something that isn't even banned?

All those people who require EPO and transfusions could be treated much easier with this?

You see how crazy this is?

How crazy? Probably as crazy as the Lance himself who used Actovegin while he had access to EPO, infusions and even PFC. Seriously, your argument is void.

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

Right... So all those pros who went to amazing lengths to acquire EPO and inject themselves, removed pints of blood for autologous transfusions and got hold of blood from dodgy suppliers for homologous blood transfusions, risking their careers and their lives could instead have just popped down to Holland and Barrett and taken something that isn't even banned?

All those people who require EPO and transfusions could be treated much easier with this?

You see how crazy this is?

I would not be surprised finding out that this drug has traditionally been taken by many cyclists and other athletes. Not as a substitute to doping but as a complement. I am sure they take a lot of various medicines or supplements, some of which may be useless, but if there is a potential of gain and little or no risk of loss, would you not take them?

You could see that with meldonium - questionable performance enhancing effects, but plenty of athletes were taking it. They go for whatever they can, and let contemplating on whether it has any performance enhancing effect for later. They can not afford missing something that others take, just in case that one thing really had that power...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Right... So all those pros who went to amazing lengths to acquire EPO and inject themselves, removed pints of blood for autologous transfusions and got hold of blood from dodgy suppliers for homologous blood transfusions, risking their careers and their lives could instead have just popped down to Holland and Barrett and taken something that isn't even banned?

All those people who require EPO and transfusions could be treated much easier with this?

You see how crazy this is?

I would not be surprised finding out that this drug has traditionally been taken by many cyclists and other athletes. Not as a substitute to doping but as a complement. I am sure they take a lot of various medicines or supplements, some of which may be useless, but if there is a potential of gain and little or no risk of loss, would you not take them?

You could see that with meldonium - questionable performance enhancing effects, but plenty of athletes were taking it. They go for whatever they can, and let contemplating on whether it has any performance enhancing effect for later. They can not afford missing something that others take, just in case that one thing really had that power...

I wasn't discussing whether people took it, I was discussing whether it was effective at raising hematocrit. I'm sure some take it, that's not the issue.

 

[red_flanders]

Why does anyone believe this Fluimucil story?

 

[PeterB]

Re: Re:

I wasn't discussing whether people took it, I was discussing whether it was effective at raising hematocrit. I'm sure some take it, that's not the issue.

Right, although the poster you responded to did not mention effect on hematocrit in particular.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Why does anyone believe this Fluimucil story?

It is possible Sky use it like Barloworld did, but it was not the PED that the jiffy bag contained and yep the Fluimucil is not important, but anything to get people talking about anything except what was really in the Jiffy bag.

Brailsford/Sky lies keep on coming.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Right... So all those pros who went to amazing lengths to acquire EPO and inject themselves, removed pints of blood for autologous transfusions and got hold of blood from dodgy suppliers for homologous blood transfusions, risking their careers and their lives could instead have just popped down to Holland and Barrett and taken something that isn't even banned?

All those people who require EPO and transfusions could be treated much easier with this?

You see how crazy this is?

How crazy? Probably as crazy as the Lance himself who used Actovegin while he had access to EPO, infusions and even PFC. Seriously, your argument is void.

We're not discussing whether someone took it, we are discussing whether it is effective. You claimed it helped, that's what is under discussion.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I wasn't discussing whether people took it, I was discussing whether it was effective at raising hematocrit. I'm sure some take it, that's not the issue.

Right, although the poster you responded to did not mention effect on hematocrit in particular.

Sorry yes, they said effective. To many discussions. Point still stands though, they claimed efficacy, not just that people take it.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Why does anyone believe this Fluimucil story?

It is possible Sky use it like Barloworld did, but it was not the PED that the jiffy bag contained and yep the Fluimucil is not important, but anything to get people talking about anything except what was really in the Jiffy bag.

Brailsford/Sky lies keep on coming.

This is the story, right here.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Why does anyone believe this Fluimucil story?

It is possible Sky use it like Barloworld did, but it was not the PED that the jiffy bag contained and yep the Fluimucil is not important, but anything to get people talking about anything except what was really in the Jiffy bag.

Brailsford/Sky lies keep on coming.

Bingo.