Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1491 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 24, 2014
8
0
8,530
This may seem a trifling issue and it is largely redundant, but it's been annoying me for ages.

Who was it who witnessed the Jiffy bag being delivered and why, in itself, would someone handling a Jiffy bag have raised eyebrows?

It's far from obvious, to me at least, what the crux of the suspicion was to whoever brought it to light.

I'm sure it must have been mentioned in some story or another, but everything I've read over the last 6 months has never properly drilled down and simply starts from the premise that the mere existence of a Jiffy bag is a 'thing'.

Is the gap in detail explainable simply as the source protecting their identity?
 
Re:

spicelab said:
This may seem a trifling issue and it is largely redundant, but it's been annoying me for ages.

Who was it who witnessed the Jiffy bag being delivered and why, in itself, would someone handling a Jiffy bag have raised eyebrows?

It's far from obvious, to me at least, what the crux of the suspicion was to whoever brought it to light.

I'm sure it must have been mentioned in some story or another, but everything I've read over the last 6 months has never properly drilled down and simply starts from the premise that the mere existence of a Jiffy bag is a 'thing'.

Is the gap in detail explainable simply as the source protecting their identity?
The allegation UKAD are investigating is they were informed that a package for Triamcinolone was transported from Manchester to Dauphine and administered to Wiggins 'during' the Dauphine race and they are seeking evidence of that anti-doping rule violation within the race being committed. Daily Mail or their informant doesn't have evidence to say it was Triamcinolone though so we don't know who informed them originally.

What i'm still not clear about is why Sapstead believes the in-competition prohibited list ends at midnight on the day of the race finishing? The UCI, UKAD, AFLD, WADA rules all state that although the event period for the race ends at midnight, the in-competition period (in terms of the prohibited substances list that applies) ends the moment you finish the race and pass through anti-doping control and give a sample. Then it simply says out-of-competition is active in any other period. Her comments suggest the event period and the in-competition period is essentially the same, which the rules clearly state it isn't in terms of what substance is prohibited at what time.
 
Re:

Semper Fidelis said:
How does the monarch get rid of a SIR? a couple of them? I mean sir ***** witz fitz and **** pederverts? Should not be a sir any longer NO?

Fing Brits and the BS. Give me tea and I will drown you.

Its the sole perogative of the monarch same as other honours.
Here is a partial list of revocations of all honours with some reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revocations_of_appointments_to_orders_and_awarded_decorations_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom


Fundamentally, if the person is bringing the system into disrepute, they will be stripped.

For Sir Wigans, pretty much only a revocation of his Tour win and 2012 medals would be likely grounds unless he goes full on crazy in interviews.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
spicelab said:
This may seem a trifling issue and it is largely redundant, but it's been annoying me for ages.

Who was it who witnessed the Jiffy bag being delivered and why, in itself, would someone handling a Jiffy bag have raised eyebrows?

It's far from obvious, to me at least, what the crux of the suspicion was to whoever brought it to light.

I'm sure it must have been mentioned in some story or another, but everything I've read over the last 6 months has never properly drilled down and simply starts from the premise that the mere existence of a Jiffy bag is a 'thing'.

Is the gap in detail explainable simply as the source protecting their identity?
The allegation UKAD are investigating is they were informed that a package for Triamcinolone was transported from Manchester to Dauphine and administered to Wiggins 'during' the Dauphine race and they are seeking evidence of that anti-doping rule violation within the race being committed. Daily Mail or their informant doesn't have evidence to say it was Triamcinolone though so we don't know who informed them originally.

What i'm still not clear about is why Sapstead believes the in-competition prohibited list ends at midnight on the day of the race finishing? The UCI, UKAD, AFLD, WADA rules all state that although the event period for the race ends at midnight, the in-competition period (in terms of the prohibited substances list that applies) ends the moment you finish the race and pass through anti-doping control and give a sample. Then it simply says out-of-competition is active in any other period. Her comments suggest the event period and the in-competition period is essentially the same, which the rules clearly state it isn't in terms of what substance is prohibited at what time.
Well pointed out.

In which case there wouldn't be any anti-doping rule violation even if it were Triamcinolone that was administered due to the timing.

However, the circumstantial evidence that has come about regarding Freemans storage of Triamcinolone would point to the 2012 Tour de France, TUE being an anti-doping violation

Brailsford/Wiggins position is/was that the Fancy Bears Tue for Hayfever was a one off, specialist advised therapy, last resort etc etc. They have been very clever but Wiggins interview with Andrew Marr seemed to suggest that he hadn't ever heard of Triamcinolone until his specialist put it forward as a remedy. They painted a picture of two guys blissfully unaware of Triamcinolone and its effects who were wholly reliant on what "specialists" were telling them.

This despite the fact that Freeman was ordering large quantities to stockpile in Manchester presumably for out of competition use. So how would they be ignorant of a drug routinely used by the team out of competition??
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
aphronesis said:
Can't skip fantasy (fans under symbolic; team player aspirations) if you're bringing on Zizek's (Lacan).
this is why it is not sport. sport involves the self, and an opponent. sometimes it is merely oneself. Extrinsic motivators and rewards are in no part of an authentic sport.
Is this the old aesthetic argument ''it's not true art if there is a financial transaction''? The pure internal creativity forever corrupted by the spectre of monetization?

I think you overstate it. Aside from the fact that by your belief sport is essentially about the self you immediately negate any ability to objectively classify it, if we assume the battle with oneself as the essence of sport the extrinsic motivators and rewards changes nowt. Now all we have is the abstract internal battle crudely represented by paper notes and binary 0's and 1's.

And and and...sports people, the dedicated serious ones that win stuff, amateur and pro, are largely a pretty dull ego-driven egomaniacal bunch of dullards. This isn't the pure aesthetic of the poor cerebral miner donning his handmade hobnails to run a marathon through the mountains just for the existential test.
No lens re-calibration needed. If we recalibrate the lense we acknowledge legitimacy. No! I say. No! I think? No psychoanalysis either (other than that it's interesting) of the internal dissonance created by the free-market capitalistic yoke. They, Sky and all the others, played the game and f##ked up. Throw the book at them and enjoy the absurd circus. Strip the Queen's badge out of their puckered rectums. Strip the good doc of his gown. I like the principles of anarchy but watching the system trip over itself is fun.
 
Re: Re:

B_Ugli said:
Well pointed out.

In which case there wouldn't be any anti-doping rule violation even if it were Triamcinolone that was administered due to the timing.
This is necessarily correct. It is important to understand that, along with the WADA code and prohibited list there is also the UCI no needles policy that must be adhered to. This was introduced in 2011 just before the Giro. It banned all injections for none medical reasons and all injections had to be logged with the UCI within 24 hours (it was possibly 48 hours at the time). The current rules, from 2015 are here but I'm pretty sure the gist of them has remained the same since introduction (they added a participation prohibition clause in 2013):

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

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/26/69/13-SEC-20150101-E_English.pdf actual document, you want section 13.3.052-13.3.055 Copied here for ease of reference:

Ban on injections
Comment: the aim of this paragraph is to prohibit the use of injections to administer drugs or substances without a clear and recognized medical indication (i.e vitamins, enzymes, cofactors, sugars, amino-acids, proteins, anti- oxydants, etc.). In particular, it refers to injections aimed at improving and speeding up recovery or decreasing fatigue

13.3.052 The injection of any substance to any site of a rider’s body is prohibited unless all of the following conditions are met:
1. The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration;
2. There is no alternative treatment without injection available;
3. The injection must respect the manufacturer-approved indication of the
medication;
4. The injection must be administered by a certified medical professional except
where normal practice is that the patient with a disease requiring injections
injects him/herself (for example diabetes);
5. The injection must be reported immediately and in writing not later than 24
hours afterwards to the UCI Doctor (via email [medical@uci.ch] or fax [+41 24 468 59 48]), except for riders
a. With a valid TUE;
b. Vaccination
c. When the injection is received during hospital treatment or clinical examination;
d. When normal practice is that the patient with a disease requiring injections injects him/herself.
The report must be made by the medical doctor having examined the rider and must include the confirmation that a physical examination took place, the diagnosis, medication and route of administration. Where applicable it shall also include the prescription referred to in article 13.1.065.
Comment to par. 5: the report may be sent by the medical doctor or the rider. The rider is responsible for the report to be sent.

13.3.053 The prohibition under article 13.3.052 applies to any substance that is injected, whether endogenous or exogenous, whether prohibited under the UCI Anti-Doping Rules or not.
13.3.054 The prohibition under article 13.3.052 applies to any type of injection: intravenous, intramuscular, intra-articular, peri-articular, peri-tendinous, epidural, intra-dermal, subcutaneous, etc.
13.3.055 In case of a local injection of glucocorticosteroids, which is subject also to the UCI Anti-Doping Rules and the Prohibited List, the rider must rest and is excluded from competition for 8 days.
The medical doctor having prescribed the injection shall prescribe this rest in writing to the rider and add to the documentation referred to in article 13.3.052.1 a copy of such prescription signed by him/herself and the rider.
If it were triamcinolone in the package and it was administered by injection (we know this is how it was administered to Wiggins on other occasions so it's logical it would be the same and Sapstead did not say a variety of different formulations of triamcinolone were found which would indicate it is likely that it was all injectables) Wiggins or Freeman would have had to inform the UCI so it would be very easy to check.

This also covers the next line of argument that some Sky fans are starting to make which is "OOC triamcinolone could be used as much as they wanted". This is only the case for oral, ointment formulations and so on. It is not true for injections. These must have a proven medical need (feeling a bit tired or fat doesn't count) justified by best practice, no alternative to injection must be available and the UCI must be informed. Since 2013 they would also have had to include a prescription for 8 days rest with the submitted documentation as per 13.3.055 if it were a local injection. This would also be my guess as to why there is no record of where and to whom the stash of triamcinolone was distributed as they could then easily be cross-referenced with the UCI documentation to check if it were done correctly.


Additionally, I think that the use of ay prohibited substance for anything other than a medical requirement is against the WADA code, but that document is massive so I' not going to search through it.
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Boonen, interesting info.
Is it really a fact that riders are banned from injections out of competition, without medical approval? I always thought it was a free-for-all with the corticosteroids OOC.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Boonen, interesting info.
Is it really a fact that riders are banned from injections out of competition, without medical approval? I always thought it was a free-for-all with the corticosteroids OOC.
Yes, they are. It's not the same as a TUE, it's like you going to a doctor with a sore shoulder and getting a cortisone injection (which is rare), so it's a much easier process. The problem here is triamcinolone is not a commonly used treatment for what Wiggins allegedly used it for. You can explain away one rider needing it due to a particular set of circumstances, but wide-spread, prolonged use is a whole new kettle of fish.

The OOC corticosteroid abuse is referencing other formulations/administration routes. Oral, ointment/cream, suppository (for the French :lol: ) are allowed OOC with no documentation (although they should still only be used on a medical basis).

the injection rules apply to everything, even vitamins.
 
Re: Sky

Ahh, good point re. needles. I thought no needles came into effect in 2012 for some reason. This explains a lot of what's happened so far then, although obviously without knowing the contents of the package, you don't know the method of administration as Triamcinolone administration could be oral, injection, inhalation, or topical I assume.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Boonen, interesting info.
Is it really a fact that riders are banned from injections out of competition, without medical approval? I always thought it was a free-for-all with the corticosteroids OOC.
Yes, they are. It's not the same as a TUE, it's like you going to a doctor with a sore shoulder and getting a cortisone injection (which is rare), so it's a much easier process. The problem here is triamcinolone is not a commonly used treatment for what Wiggins allegedly used it for. You can explain away one rider needing it due to a particular set of circumstances, but wide-spread, prolonged use is a whole new kettle of fish.

The OOC corticosteroid abuse is referencing other formulations/administration routes. Oral, ointment/cream, suppository (for the French :lol: ) are allowed OOC with no documentation (although they should still only be used on a medical basis).

the injection rules apply to everything, even vitamins.
So really this is ultimately going to boil down to whether UKAD deem that the evidence they have on Freemans ordering of Corticosteroids is enough to show that the 2012 TDF TUE was fraudulent.

For them the ultimate decision will be, is it worth sanctioning a rider who is now retired but could still appeal a ban in the CAS.
 
I can't see UKAD being able to do a thing unless someone says something other than Fluamicil and has some evidence to suggest otherwise. End of the day the allegation UKAD is investigating is without evidence and the response to being investigated is without evidence. Basically it's gone nowhere, very slowly so far.
 
Re: Sky

samhocking said:
Ahh, good point re. needles. I thought no needles came into effect in 2012 for some reason. This explains a lot of what's happened so far then, although obviously without knowing the contents of the package, you don't know the method of administration as Triamcinolone administration could be oral, injection, inhalation, or topical I assume.
Injection, nasal spray and topical are licensed in the UK through the MHRA so they would be most likely. I feel that Sapstead would have mentioned it though when questioned on the amount of triamcinolone ordered if all of the rest of it had been sprays and ointment. I think it's fair to assume that it was injectable until shown otherwise, but those documents do exist apparently so it'll no doubt come out if it is a different formulation.

B_Ugli said:
King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Boonen, interesting info.
Is it really a fact that riders are banned from injections out of competition, without medical approval? I always thought it was a free-for-all with the corticosteroids OOC.
Yes, they are. It's not the same as a TUE, it's like you going to a doctor with a sore shoulder and getting a cortisone injection (which is rare), so it's a much easier process. The problem here is triamcinolone is not a commonly used treatment for what Wiggins allegedly used it for. You can explain away one rider needing it due to a particular set of circumstances, but wide-spread, prolonged use is a whole new kettle of fish.

The OOC corticosteroid abuse is referencing other formulations/administration routes. Oral, ointment/cream, suppository (for the French :lol: ) are allowed OOC with no documentation (although they should still only be used on a medical basis).

the injection rules apply to everything, even vitamins.
So really this is ultimately going to boil down to whether UKAD deem that the evidence they have on Freemans ordering of Corticosteroids is enough to show that the 2012 TDF TUE was fraudulent.

For them the ultimate decision will be, is it worth sanctioning a rider who is now retired but could still appeal a ban in the CAS.
In the Wiggins case yes, that seems a fair assessment, although I think very hard to show.

In general it's not just triamcinolone. It seems like there are hardly any records of what went where and who got what. Loads of missing documents, possible fraud, BC possibly wholesaling medicine without a licence. The Wiggins case could well be a dead end (or might not be) but I think this investigation is going to cause a lot of trouble for BC/Sky if it carries on and other agencies start getting involved.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Indeed

And up to this point nobody seems to have even considered the possibility that:
(a) the bag had more than one dose of whatever for more than one rider; or
(b) that similar medicine stores may exist at other Sky facilities such as their Service Course in Belgium

It would appear that SKY PLC are attempting to book end the episode in the same way as British Cycling did:

However, James Murdoch, chairman of Sky plc, expressed commitment to the team in a brief exchange with the Telegraphon Thursday.

“We’re looking forward to a great season and the team looks really strong,” he said. “We are backing them and we’re enthusiastic about their future success.”
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
 
Re: Re:

B_Ugli said:
samhocking said:
spicelab said:
This may seem a trifling issue and it is largely redundant, but it's been annoying me for ages.

Who was it who witnessed the Jiffy bag being delivered and why, in itself, would someone handling a Jiffy bag have raised eyebrows?

It's far from obvious, to me at least, what the crux of the suspicion was to whoever brought it to light.

I'm sure it must have been mentioned in some story or another, but everything I've read over the last 6 months has never properly drilled down and simply starts from the premise that the mere existence of a Jiffy bag is a 'thing'.

My guess if UKAD are lucky they can ping Dr Freeman for trafficking a prohibited substance, seeing there seems to be an acknowledgement that it was given to staff and friends - This carries a life penalty.

Is the gap in detail explainable simply as the source protecting their identity?
The allegation UKAD are investigating is they were informed that a package for Triamcinolone was transported from Manchester to Dauphine and administered to Wiggins 'during' the Dauphine race and they are seeking evidence of that anti-doping rule violation within the race being committed. Daily Mail or their informant doesn't have evidence to say it was Triamcinolone though so we don't know who informed them originally.

What i'm still not clear about is why Sapstead believes the in-competition prohibited list ends at midnight on the day of the race finishing? The UCI, UKAD, AFLD, WADA rules all state that although the event period for the race ends at midnight, the in-competition period (in terms of the prohibited substances list that applies) ends the moment you finish the race and pass through anti-doping control and give a sample. Then it simply says out-of-competition is active in any other period. Her comments suggest the event period and the in-competition period is essentially the same, which the rules clearly state it isn't in terms of what substance is prohibited at what time.
Well pointed out.

In which case there wouldn't be any anti-doping rule violation even if it were Triamcinolone that was administered due to the timing.

However, the circumstantial evidence that has come about regarding Freemans storage of Triamcinolone would point to the 2012 Tour de France, TUE being an anti-doping violation

Brailsford/Wiggins position is/was that the Fancy Bears Tue for Hayfever was a one off, specialist advised therapy, last resort etc etc. They have been very clever but Wiggins interview with Andrew Marr seemed to suggest that he hadn't ever heard of Triamcinolone until his specialist put it forward as a remedy. They painted a picture of two guys blissfully unaware of Triamcinolone and its effects who were wholly reliant on what "specialists" were telling them.

This despite the fact that Freeman was ordering large quantities to stockpile in Manchester presumably for out of competition use. So how would they be ignorant of a drug routinely used by the team out of competition??
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
 
Apr 17, 2009
36
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
I'm sorry. Why would they report an "illegal" injection and if they didn't, How would anyone know?
 
Re: Re:

climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
I'm sorry. Why would they report an "illegal" injection and if they didn't, How would anyone know?
What are you talking about?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

B_Ugli said:
However, James Murdoch, chairman of Sky plc, expressed commitment to the team in a brief exchange with the Telegraphon Thursday.

“We’re looking forward to a great season and the team looks really strong,” he said. “We are backing them and we’re enthusiastic about their future success.”
James Murdoch just giving a boilerplate reply.

What will determine Team Sky's fat, is the full control bid before the EU. and then seeking approval from the British Government on media assets and if Sky can take the controlling stake, or outright ownerhip. When we already know James is the Executive Chair I believe, so Rupert Murdoch and conduit News Ltd effectively pull the strings as is. But Rupert wants 100%.

So... I dont know the relationship RM has to the Theresa May administration, nor Brussels.

But my reckoning is, the fate of Team Sky will reside in Brussels(EU decision on media assets) and Theresa May at 8 Downing street.

If they hang in, Brailsford walks the plank, takes a million GBP with him as his severance, and he returns his knighthood. Everyone will need a fall guy, this time it will be Brailsford
 
Apr 17, 2009
36
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
I'm sorry. Why would they report an "illegal" injection and if they didn't, How would anyone know?
What are you talking about?
If I inject you with Heroin and don't tell anyone and you don't tell anyone How would it come to light? Or if you inject yourself even better. Who would know if someone is injecting in out of competition?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
What are you talking about?
it was a reply to the, no, it was a reply implicit the paradox of making injections illegal.

well, so are PEDs in cycling, but we all take them in the peloton.

Also, so much illegal stuff can now be delivered via other method. Seems the hypodermic transmission method being outlawed was pure spin.
 
Re: Re:

climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
I'm sorry. Why would they report an "illegal" injection and if they didn't, How would anyone know?
What are you talking about?
If I inject you with Heroin and don't tell anyone and you don't tell anyone How would it come to light? Or if you inject yourself even better. Who would know if someone is injecting in out of competition?
Nothing here works but my works. Famous line, everyone junkie leaves their equipment lying around, see: David Millar.
 
Re: Re:

climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
climb4fun said:
King Boonen said:
Dan2016 said:
Interesting stuff, I didn't know the no-needles policy applied OOC.
So, giving away my medical ignorance, can you tell solely from the type of Kenakort that it is only for injection? In other words could Sky say that the specific type they have/had, even if it's normally used for injections, can also be used orally or whatever? Or is that a non-starter?

I'm really surprised the no-needle applies OOC actually, even for vitamins. Seems a bit draconian. Vitamin B12 injections used to be the norm, best way to get it in your system, bypassing digestion. It's good for endurance sport, good for health. Now riders need a document trail for B12 injections OOC or they are liable for a ban? Is that really true? I'm just surprised.
Yes, you'd be able to tell. The active substance is the same but the formulations are all very different. Injectables are sterile, ointments are topical and nasal sprays come in a container that will spray it. Add to that the documentation for the purchases exists which will detail exactly what was bought.

The idea behind the no needles policy is two-fold. Firstly, it means that difficult to detect doping like transfusions, endogenous (naturally occurring) compounds etc. can be caught in two ways and there is no lying and saying I thought/was told it was just a vitamin shot. The main premise though is that a healthy athlete shouldn't need injections to compete. I think that's a very good stance to have.

Yep, any injection and you are liable for a ban and fine. The bans are not as long as the more normal anti-doping violations (unless you get caught injecting PEDs) for the first offence, it's 8 days to 6 months for a first offence. 2 years for a second (possibly gone out to 4 now and the documents need updating but I'm not sure) then 6 years to lifetime. There are fines too.
I'm sorry. Why would they report an "illegal" injection and if they didn't, How would anyone know?
What are you talking about?
If I inject you with Heroin and don't tell anyone and you don't tell anyone How would it come to light? Or if you inject yourself even better. Who would know if someone is injecting in out of competition?
Other people have answered this but I still don't see what that has to do with my post. I didn't say anything about how the investigation would go, I just outlined the rules and what I believe the logic behind them is.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
King Boonen said:
What are you talking about?
it was a reply to the, no, it was a reply implicit the paradox of making injections illegal.

well, so are PEDs in cycling, but we all take them in the peloton.

Also, so much illegal stuff can now be delivered via other method. Seems the hypodermic transmission method being outlawed was pure spin.
I know, but it had nothing to do with my post. I was just outlining the rules. I didn't say anything about reporting/investigating offences.

Bioavailability and location differs based on delivery method, it's why injectable still exist and not everything is in pill/cream form. I know what you mean, for example outlawing injections of glucocorticosteroids but them allowing people to guzzle them as pills seems like a marketing effort (and it is in some respects) but outlawing injections is still worthwhile, they should just go further.
 
Apr 17, 2009
36
0
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
blackcat said:
King Boonen said:
What are you talking about?
it was a reply to the, no, it was a reply implicit the paradox of making injections illegal.

well, so are PEDs in cycling, but we all take them in the peloton.

Also, so much illegal stuff can now be delivered via other method. Seems the hypodermic transmission method being outlawed was pure spin.
I know, but it had nothing to do with my post. I was just outlining the rules. I didn't say anything about reporting/investigating offences.

Bioavailability and location differs based on delivery method, it's why injectable still exist and not everything is in pill/cream form. I know what you mean, for example outlawing injections of glucocorticosteroids but them allowing people to guzzle them as pills seems like a marketing effort (and it is in some respects) but outlawing injections is still worthwhile, they should just go further.
Sorry. I guess I was questioning the "logic". It wasn't personal.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS