• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 916 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
So you no longer doubt the statement that TUEs are on the increase? Progression.
You're joining dots again sniper, and once again getting the wrong answer. I made no comment about whether or not TUEs are increasing, I questioned you on what was interesting about a statistic which even you appear to be now admitting is utter nonsense. A question you appear unable to answer. Perhaps that could mean there was nothing interesting in it?
it is interesting reading.
which doesn't mean you aren't allowed to object to it or point out flawed reasoning, as you rightly did.
so where's the problem?

As to your comment, quoted below:
sniper said:
In any case it stands to reason that the number of tues has increased over time as the number of banned substances has increased too.
Reason is clearly one of your weak areas. It does not stand to reason. So let's park reason and go with cold, hard facts: the numbers. The UCI's numbers follow for you:
Year 2009 TUEs granted 239
Year 2010 TUEs granted 97
Year 2011 TUEs granted 56
Year 2012 TUEs granted 47
Year 2013 TUEs granted 30
Year 2014 TUEs granted 24
Year 2015 TUEs granted 13
In case you need it pointing out, those numbers are not increasing. They are in fact doing the opposite of increasing: decreasing. Disagree with them, please do. But do so with numbers, not bull crap.
Good data. Thanks. Link?
What if you include the years 2000-2009? Well, it won't get much lower than 13. So yes, TUES in cycling do not seem to be on the increase.
And that's well worth an explanation.
Maybe nobody gets TUEs except Sky? :)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Rollthedice posted this elsewhere

Rollthedice said:
It's all in the CIRC report but nobody bothers to follow up:

There were allegations of cortisone use, in order to lose weight, and of abuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions to enable this. “One doctor stated that: riders use corticoids to ‘clean out’ ie to lose weight quickly, and keep it off, without losing power.”

“Today there appears to be concern among riders about the way in which TUEs are used for corticoids and insulin in particular, and the extent to which they are being abused. One difficulty, raised by a laboratory, is that it is difficult to tell from a sample whether corticoids have been administered through permitted routes of administration. In general, there was a feeling that it is too easy to obtain a TUE; one rider who had doped reported that he was told to ask for a TUE for triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort) claiming that he had tendinitis; he had no problem obtaining the TUE.”

“Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI WorldTour 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.”

hope this helps the pedantics. :D
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
So you no longer doubt the statement that TUEs are on the increase? Progression.
You're joining dots again sniper, and once again getting the wrong answer. I made no comment about whether or not TUEs are increasing, I questioned you on what was interesting about a statistic which even you appear to be now admitting is utter nonsense. A question you appear unable to answer. Perhaps that could mean there was nothing interesting in it?

As to your comment, quoted below:
sniper said:
In any case it stands to reason that the number of tues has increased over time as the number of banned substances has increased too.
Reason is clearly one of your weak areas. It does not stand to reason. So let's park reason and go with cold, hard facts: the numbers. The UCI's numbers follow for you:
Year 2009 TUEs granted 239
Year 2010 TUEs granted 97
Year 2011 TUEs granted 56
Year 2012 TUEs granted 47
Year 2013 TUEs granted 30
Year 2014 TUEs granted 24
Year 2015 TUEs granted 13
In case you need it pointing out, those numbers are not increasing. They are in fact doing the opposite of increasing: decreasing. Disagree with them, please do. But do so with numbers, not bull crap.
That number cannot be right. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Norvo Nordisk alone has 20 riders, all with type 1 diabetes and TUEs for insulin.

Something does not add up.
 
Re: Re:

Year 2009 TUEs granted 239
Year 2010 TUEs granted 97
Year 2011 TUEs granted 56
Year 2012 TUEs granted 47
Year 2013 TUEs granted 30
Year 2014 TUEs granted 24
Year 2015 TUEs granted 13

Marginal gains by not-so marginal losses of TUEs granted for the competition?
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
So you no longer doubt the statement that TUEs are on the increase? Progression.
You're joining dots again sniper, and once again getting the wrong answer. I made no comment about whether or not TUEs are increasing, I questioned you on what was interesting about a statistic which even you appear to be now admitting is utter nonsense. A question you appear unable to answer. Perhaps that could mean there was nothing interesting in it?

As to your comment, quoted below:
sniper said:
In any case it stands to reason that the number of tues has increased over time as the number of banned substances has increased too.
Reason is clearly one of your weak areas. It does not stand to reason. So let's park reason and go with cold, hard facts: the numbers. The UCI's numbers follow for you:
Year 2009 TUEs granted 239
Year 2010 TUEs granted 97
Year 2011 TUEs granted 56
Year 2012 TUEs granted 47
Year 2013 TUEs granted 30
Year 2014 TUEs granted 24
Year 2015 TUEs granted 13
In case you need it pointing out, those numbers are not increasing. They are in fact doing the opposite of increasing: decreasing. Disagree with them, please do. But do so with numbers, not bull crap.
That number cannot be right. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Norvo Nordisk alone has 20 riders, all with type 1 diabetes and TUEs for insulin.

Something does not add up.
See the blue bolded above - there's your answer... a truly reliable source ;)
 
Aug 9, 2016
46
1
3,585
Re:

maxmayer555 said:

It fits...but in an exactly opposite way from the way you want it to fit...

Read -

"Dr Fallon and colleagues experimented with laboratory mice genetically engineered with a tendency to asthma and anaphylaxis. They then infected the mice with schistosomes.

"These animals did not develop difficulty in breathing. The presence of the worms blocks pulmonary inflammation
"

So, what do you think might happen if you then cured the said animal of the worms? (In the way Froome was cured of Bilharzia at a point in time before his 2 TUE were applied for.) Maybe an increased likelihood of developing an autoimmune response...ie. asthma?

So curing Froome of Bilharizia was more likely to make him have asthma.
 
Aug 9, 2016
46
1
3,585
Re: Re:

sniper said:
fmk_RoI said:
sniper said:
So you no longer doubt the statement that TUEs are on the increase? Progression.
You're joining dots again sniper, and once again getting the wrong answer. I made no comment about whether or not TUEs are increasing, I questioned you on what was interesting about a statistic which even you appear to be now admitting is utter nonsense. A question you appear unable to answer. Perhaps that could mean there was nothing interesting in it?
it is interesting reading.
which doesn't mean you aren't allowed to object to it or point out flawed reasoning, as you rightly did.
so where's the problem?

As to your comment, quoted below:
sniper said:
In any case it stands to reason that the number of tues has increased over time as the number of banned substances has increased too.
Reason is clearly one of your weak areas. It does not stand to reason. So let's park reason and go with cold, hard facts: the numbers. The UCI's numbers follow for you:
Year 2009 TUEs granted 239
Year 2010 TUEs granted 97
Year 2011 TUEs granted 56
Year 2012 TUEs granted 47
Year 2013 TUEs granted 30
Year 2014 TUEs granted 24
Year 2015 TUEs granted 13
In case you need it pointing out, those numbers are not increasing. They are in fact doing the opposite of increasing: decreasing. Disagree with them, please do. But do so with numbers, not bull crap.

Good data. Thanks. Link?
What if you include the years 2000-2009? Well, it won't get much lower than 13. So yes, TUES in cycling do not seem to be on the increase.
And that's well worth an explanation.
Maybe nobody gets TUEs except Sky? :)

It's been linked (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=2023330#p2023330) and discussed in this very thread.
 
May 12, 2011
206
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
I know that Froome had TUEs for the pred. Has there been mention of a TUE for the inhaler? Sorry, if I am asking something which has been answered already.

You don't need a TUE for an inhaler if it is a corticosteroid or the most commonly prescribed bronchodilators.

The requirement for TUEs for bronchodilators was done away with a few years ago.
 
May 12, 2011
206
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
I think Froome comes out of this looking pretty reliable....as far as the TUEs go.
What he said previously about his TUEs has been largely confirmed by the leaked files.
And so what this shows is that, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, then TRANSPARENCY IS YOUR FRIEND.

And so we're back to the pre-Vuelta 2011 data and all the other things Sky and Froome refuse to be transparent about.

Did you just say something positive (excuse the pun) about Froome???

:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re: Re:

Jeroen Swart said:
sniper said:
I think Froome comes out of this looking pretty reliable....as far as the TUEs go.
What he said previously about his TUEs has been largely confirmed by the leaked files.
And so what this shows is that, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, then TRANSPARENCY IS YOUR FRIEND.

And so we're back to the pre-Vuelta 2011 data and all the other things Sky and Froome refuse to be transparent about.

Did you just say something positive (excuse the pun) about Froome???

:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
:)
Definitely.

Wiggins TUE data seem much more questionable.

Jeroen, do you by any chance know SA cycling numbers for TUEs? Would you say they're on the increase? Is abuse of the system a (big) issue?

Edit: I also think froome has handled criticism much better than wiggins. On that note, i think you yourself were fair and transparent in the froome data thread the other day, for which my retrospective kudos.
 
Re: Re:

Jeroen Swart said:
armchairclimber said:
I know that Froome had TUEs for the pred. Has there been mention of a TUE for the inhaler? Sorry, if I am asking something which has been answered already.

You don't need a TUE for an inhaler if it is a corticosteroid or the most commonly prescribed bronchodilators.

The requirement for TUEs for bronchodilators was done away with a few years ago.

Thanks. I should have known that.
 
May 12, 2011
206
0
0
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Jeroen Swart said:
sniper said:
I think Froome comes out of this looking pretty reliable....as far as the TUEs go.
What he said previously about his TUEs has been largely confirmed by the leaked files.
And so what this shows is that, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, then TRANSPARENCY IS YOUR FRIEND.

And so we're back to the pre-Vuelta 2011 data and all the other things Sky and Froome refuse to be transparent about.

Did you just say something positive (excuse the pun) about Froome???

:surprised:
:)
Definitely.

Wiggins TUE data seem much more questionable.

Jeroen, do you by any chance know SA cycling numbers for TUEs? Would you say they're on the increase? Is abuse of the system a (big) issue?

Edit: I also think froome has handled criticism much better than wiggins. On that note, i think you yourself were fair and transparent in the froome data thread the other day, for which my retrospective kudos.

No Sniper! This is too much! You're going soft on us! :lol: :lol:

To answer your question: I don't have info on TUEs in SA. Not an area that I'm involved with.

I agree Wiggins comes out of this looking bad. A big shot of corticoids in the bum just before a GT that you aim to win? Whether justified or not, it doesn't look good.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Is it really surprising that in a sport like cycling, where light has been shone on the practice of TUE's for a long time, there appears to be less of it, whereas in other sports, where light hasn't been shone anywhere but on stars bank accounts, there is considerably more?

And let's not forget that TUE's have the same purpose in drug taking as the waiting room does to the doctors office. Some athletes stay in the waiting room their whole career, some have the VIP pass. In modern cycling you better have the VIP pass.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Re:

sniper said:
I think Froome comes out of this looking pretty reliable....as far as the TUEs go.
What he said previously about his TUEs has been largely confirmed by the leaked files.
And so what this shows is that, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, then TRANSPARENCY IS YOUR FRIEND.

And so we're back to the pre-Vuelta 2011 data and all the other things Sky and Froome refuse to be transparent about.
Exactly.

Still, I like the guy (his partner has a bit of a temper issue online, but that happens to the best of us^^). Almost certain he's charging, but that's part of the scene.

I personally feel there's a HUGE difference in being a terrible human being (Lance), enabler (Breukink, Brailsford, Leinders, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and a few 100 more etc.) and big shot profiteer (Verdruggen) versus the standard charging pro.

I understand people disagreeing here, but I gladly will drink a beer with Wiggo/Froomey/Ulrich/Contador, simply because first and foremost they really love cycling.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Always good to see you chime in Franklin.
Agree, except I do have a bit of a problem with wigg ins to the extent that he's been dealing punches below the belt to whistleblower's and people like kimmage.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
it is interesting reading.
I'm not playing the is/isn't game, I'm not even going to point out the amount of times you've said something was when it clearly wasn't. All I'm doing - and imagine me here down on my knees, eyes pleading like Reneé Falconetti with a couple of bags of chopped onions in her pockets - is asking you to please, please, please tell me what is interesting about it. Cause I ain't seein' it. And you've said it is interesting, even though even a twelve year old would be able to see it's nonsense.
sniper said:
Good data. Thanks. Link?
Try Googling it. Unless you think it's been removed from Google by nefarious types who have time enough to stop internet sleuths from finding these things.
sniper said:
What if you include the years 2000-2009?
You're asking me to do the work to prove your argument? You really don't understand how this works, do you? If you think the 2000-2009 data makes a good explanation, prove it. I'm almost looking forward to how you think it could though.
sniper said:
So yes, TUES in cycling do not seem to be on the increase.
Time and again you demonstrate the same problem - you make assumptions based on incomplete data. I offered up the UCI's figures. Not cycling's.
 
Re: Re:

Winnats said:
maxmayer555 said:

It fits...but in an exactly opposite way from the way you want it to fit...

Read -

"Dr Fallon and colleagues experimented with laboratory mice genetically engineered with a tendency to asthma and anaphylaxis. They then infected the mice with schistosomes.

"These animals did not develop difficulty in breathing. The presence of the worms blocks pulmonary inflammation
"

So, what do you think might happen if you then cured the said animal of the worms? (In the way Froome was cured of Bilharzia at a point in time before his 2 TUE were applied for.) Maybe an increased likelihood of developing an autoimmune response...ie. asthma?

So curing Froome of Bilharizia was more likely to make him have asthma.

Asthma susceptibility is also most often determined very early in life or in utero when the airways are developing. A single bout of Schisto later in life is not likely to fall into the category of the cohort persistently infected with parasites. Plus when dealing with an N=1, it is unwise to apply statistics to make a definitive point.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
I think the massive drop from 2009 to 2010 would be salbutamol no longer needing a TUE. (Within typical limits of normal use)
You know, it's remarkable how small is the number of people who actually think like that, who look at a set of numbers and consider the changes behind them, recognise that rule changes impact the numbers.

A decade ago, certainly pre-WADA, the ease and frequency with which TUEs were issued was a real problem. TUEs were legalised doping. Post-WADA the TUE problem has been resolved. It's harder to get a TUE. (Well, it's harder on paper but in the field even through to 2013/2014 experience has shown it wasn't.) But, more importantly, the situations in which you require a TUE have been decreased. It's no longer the times you need a TUE to legally dope that are the issue: it's the times you don't need a TUE to legally dope.

TUEs are a distraction. They are nothing more than an intelligence test, which only the likes of Yates/Orica fail.