Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[ebandit]

I think you need to provide a link for that....

Again, WADA can't revoke an emergency TUE. Not possible.

This is second time you've failed to provide links. Its becoming common practice

Article 8.6 of the WADA document on TUEs

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2015-ISTUE-Final-EN.pdf

Have a look at this document....on page 20 onwards it has nice flowcharts detailing the processes that lead up to reversal of TUEs

.....reversals which in hog world can't happen

 

[ebandit]

I'm not comfortable with TUEs being issued to enable competition.
The UCI may be in error over procedure.
Sky, under the current rules are unimpeachable, whichever way you try to spin it, or any shady deals to which you may elude. (make up)

Exactly

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

Article 8.6 of the WADA document on TUEs

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2015-ISTUE-Final-EN.pdf

Have a look at this document....on page 20 onwards it has nice flowcharts detailing the processes that lead up to reversal of TUEs

.....reversals which in hog world can't happen

Game, set and match I think ...

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not comfortable with TUEs being issued to enable competition.
The UCI may be in error over procedure.
Sky, under the current rules are unimpeachable, whichever way you try to spin it, or any shady deals to which you may elude. (make up)

'Never tested positive'.......................

 

[thehog]

Article 8.6 of the WADA document on TUEs

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2015-ISTUE-Final-EN.pdf

Have a look at this document....on page 20 onwards it has nice flowcharts detailing the processes that lead up to reversal of TUEs

.....reversals which in hog world can't happen

As I stated; that is for "prospective" and "retroactive" TUEs not emergency.

Where is the ability to revoke for "emergency"?

Armstrong would be fine, not Froome.

 

[Mellow Velo]

'Never tested positive'.......................

In relation to my post, wtf is that supposed to mean?
On second thoughts, don't bother.

 

[ebandit]

As I stated; that is for "prospective" and "retroactive" TUEs not emergency.

Where is the ability to revoke for "emergency"?

Armstrong would be fine, not Froome.

Can't have been easy trying to read that document on your mobile phone hog.........look a little closer.......8.1

Any TUE can be reversed.

Mark L

 

[red_flanders]

No, they cant. But they can overrule it after the fact and (AFAIK) sanction both rider and federation. IIRC they ok'd the TUE after reviewing the facts about the illness and medication required, but were unhappy about the fact the 'committee' was only one person but lets not let the facts get in the way shall we.

And as ebandit pointed out - if Froome's TUE was 'illegal' so were any others (if any) that were issued, its just that those ones weren't leaked...

This all sounds correct from what I know. They allowed it but did note concerns about the single point of failure and noted it was against the proper rules.

All very grey and all fully compatible with the previous history we know about UCI, Zorzoli and TUE's. All shady as hell and nicely swept away.

 

[ebandit]

.....not by WADA

They didn't reverse the TUE....just asked that the procedural issue be rectified expeditiously

WADA's rules.....WADA got the final say

Mark L

 

[thehog]

Can't have been easy trying to read that document on your mobile phone hog.........look a little closer.......8.1

Any TUE can be reversed.

Mark L

You're still not seeing it.

Where can WADA take upon themselves to review the TUE without the athlete, the national federation or the international federation asking it to?

But I strand corrected on this matter, it appears although somewhat gray that the UCI did ask WADA to review the TUE to Froome? (or did they?)

 

[ebandit]

But I strand corrected on this matter, it appears although somewhat gray that the UCI did ask WADA to review the TUE to Froome? (or did they?)

Well, respect due to you for at least holding your hands up on this......which brings us back to the point.......WADA reviewed TUE.......TUE upheld as legitimate

(For Sceptic: Legitimate= not illegal)

Mark L

 

[thehog]

Well, respect due to you for at least holding your hands up on this......which brings us back to the point.......WADA reviewed TUE.......TUE upheld as legitimate

(For Sceptic: Legitimate= not illegal)

Mark L

Well yes, I agree they can revoke a TUE but only if the case is "referred".

The part I'm not getting but it looks like the UCI did refer it to WADA then again I'm not sure if they did. Its not 100% clear if WADA did actually review the TUE or just the UCI's handling of it.

I'm not convinced therefore it couldn't be revoked. That may be semantics but the UCI hasn't helped the situation.

Where the request is for review of a TUE decision of an International
Federation that WADA is obliged to review, WADA may nevertheless refer the
decision back to the International Federation (a) for clarification (for example, if the reasons are not clearly set out in the decision); and/or (b) for re-consideration by the International Federation (for example, if the TUE was only denied because medical tests or other information required to demonstrate satisfaction of the Article 4.1 conditions were missing).

 

[mrhender]

Regardless of Froome TUE's are problematic and WADA knows it...

It was only a leak that ensured information on the froome TUE..

And it is rather a common issue in the peleton..

As late as three weeks ago WADA had a meeting on the issue:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2014-10/wada-hosts-successful-3rd-tue-symposium

The Symposium discussed the TUE principles and practices and covered the crucial relevant changes in the revised World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE), both of which come into effect at the start of 2015.

Participants – mostly physicians but also some ADO management personnel – discussed and debated topics including numerous medical conditions that require the use of certain prohibited substances; challenges and lessons from ADOs; the continuing danger of supplement use in sport and details on TUE recognition and the appeal process. Former professional cyclist Tyler Hamilton participated in the event, and provided an athlete’s perspective including how TUEs had been abused.

WADA Medical Director, Dr. Alan Vernec: “We are extremely pleased with the outcomes of this Symposium. It occurred at an important time with the forthcoming changes to the Code and International Standards.

“The event allowed participants to further understand the key elements of the TUE process and the need to improve the quality of granted TUEs. We were also able to discuss the important balance of on the one hand ensuring that athletes with legitimate medical needs are still able to compete with approved medication yet on the other making sure that the TUE system is not abused as a back door way to cheating”.

Pretending that the Froome TUE and others are just fine is imo too kind...

Again -we only know about the "single" Froome TUE due to a breach of confitentiality..
To assume that this is the only case of team sky OR in general is wearing blindfolds...
Yes the TUE was ok'ed by WADA..
But why then should the UCI and WADA change their rules/praxises as an outcome? was it then all okay?

 

[the sceptic]

Well, respect due to you for at least holding your hands up on this......which brings us back to the point.......WADA reviewed TUE.......TUE upheld as legitimate

(For Sceptic: Legitimate= not illegal)

Mark L

When did they review it? At the time it was handed out or after it became public?

 

[thehog]

When did they review it? At the time it was handed out or after it became public?

Agreed, I’ve looked again.

WADA did not reviewed the Froome TUE thus could not revoke. The UCI did not refer it, UKAD did not refer it and the athlete did not refer it.

WADA has not approved the TUE nor revoked it as it was not referred to them.

 

[ebandit]

Agreed, I’ve looked again.

WADA did not reviewed the Froome TUE thus could not revoke. The UCI did not refer it, UKAD did not refer it and the athlete did not refer it.

WADA has not approved the TUE nor revoked it as it was not referred to them.

They must have reviewed it in order to announce that they were satisfied with it.......or are you suggesting that they just said it for the hell of it?

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

They must have reviewed it in order to announce that they were satisfied with it.......or are you suggesting that they just said it for the hell of it?

Mark L

The horse had already left the barn then.

After it became public, the UCI went into damage control mode. Did you notice how fast Cookson was to defend his boy?

WADA probably didnt want to throw Cookson under the bus. But the UCI broke the rules when they handed Dawg the express TUE. No amount of nitpicking can change that fact, Mark.

 

[ebandit]

To be honest, Scep, I'll take WADA's view on whether their own rules were broken over your opinion.

Sorry.

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

To be honest, Scep, I'll take WADA's view on whether their own rules were broken over your opinion.

Sorry.

Mark L

Of course Mark.

No rules broken. It was a level field with everyone on elephant steroids and Dawg has never tested positive.

 

[thehog]

They must have reviewed it in order to announce that they were satisfied with it.......or are you suggesting that they just said it for the hell of it?

Mark L

WADA reviews the “individual” TUE. Not the process or procedure. I can’t see that it was referred for review. So to the earlier point they could not revoke the TUE as it was not presented to WADA’s TUEC. It’s in the document you kindly linked.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code says that sport governing bodies, the UCI in cycling’s case, must have a committee of “at least three physicians” to evaluate TUE requests. The UCI said last week that the TUE was granted “in compliance” with its rules and WADA guidelines. It added, “Any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE.”

Sky’s case bothered WADA, however. The weekly said that WADA Director General David Howman “is concerned” about the UCI’s TUE process and asked it “to quickly fix the shortcomings identified in this case.”

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...roomes-steroid-tue-127529#okLeibCQAy5VPm7j.99

 

[TheSpud]

The horse had already left the barn then.

After it became public, the UCI went into damage control mode. Did you notice how fast Cookson was to defend his boy?

WADA probably didnt want to throw Cookson under the bus. But the UCI broke the rules when they handed Dawg the express TUE. No amount of nitpicking can change that fact, Mark.

Actually the process followed was correct - it went to the TUE 'committee'. What was wrong was that the 'committee' was only 1 person / was allowed to defer decisions to only 1 person. Again, as you fail to grasp, WADA reviewed it and were happy that it was legitimately granted but wanted improvements to the 'committee' part.

However, it is interesting that you now say it was the UCI that broke the rules. I think previously you have accused Sky of breaking the rules, when in fact they followed the process that had been laid out to them.

 

[ebandit]

I sorry you are angry, Scep........take it up with WADA if you think you know more about their rules than they do

I think this angle is over for you.

Of course you've missed the massive irony over what we've been discussing, haven't you....

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Actually the process followed was correct - it went to the TUE 'committee'. What was wrong was that the 'committee' was only 1 person / was allowed to defer decisions to only 1 person. Again, as you fail to grasp, WADA reviewed it and were happy that it was legitimately granted but wanted improvements to the 'committee' part.

However, it is interesting that you now say it was the UCI that broke the rules. I think previously you have accused Sky of breaking the rules, when in fact they followed the process that had been laid out to them.

The TUE should never have been handed out in the first place. Dawg was not sick and there was no emergency. the UCI went against WADAs rules when they handed it out despite not passing through a committee. Those are facts Martin. Sky took advantage of this loophole to dope up the Dawg on horse steroids.

But please, do continue with your pointless vortexing Martin.

 

[TheSpud]

Of course Mark.

No rules broken. It was a level field with everyone on elephant steroids and Dawg has never tested positive.

Elephant steroids now - heavens, whatever next? Woolly Mammoth steroids?

So what if they are used on horses - strangely most mammals have the same underlying biology & chemical make up, so the following probably puts it in to perspective.

The usual horse dosage is between 0.25-1mg per Kg of horse. Typical horse is probably 1000lbs = 454Kg, therefore the dose would be between
113mg and 454mg.


I believe Froome was prescribed 40mg of Pred (per day probably) which is nearer the upper end of the usual dosage for a human (based on easily researchable information). So, about 0.66mg per Kg (based on Froome being 66Kg) - not exactly out of range for body size.

 

[thehog]

The TUE should never have been handed out in the first place. Dawg was not sick and there was no emergency. the UCI went against WADAs rules when they handed it out despite not passing through a committee. Those are facts Martin. Sky took advantage of this loophole to dope up the Dawg on horse steroids.

But please, do continue with your pointless vortexing Martin.

I would agree, smoke and mirrors. The TUE was approved by one person and wasn’t referred thus WADA could not investigate the individuals need for the TUE. Froome dodges a bullet, again.

Just to think if the story was never leaked... we never would have known.