Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

[hazaran]

Re: Re:

Also, what happened to October?

Haha, god Zorzoli is a hack.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)

 

[King Boonen]

It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?

If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.

The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)

The UCI have made no secret of the fact that there is and has been a problem WRT TUEs and the Classics. Here's McQuaid, for instance:

“I do remember having a discussion with Zorzoli and he told me that at the Classics there were riders who were looking to win or do well and were taking corticosteroids during that period on a TUE. He felt that it wasn’t a genuine TUE but that it was just to help them.”

McQuaid went on:

“We felt it [the TUE system – ed.] was being abused during the Classics. It wasn’t the case that it was being abused in general. If a rider asks for a TUE a couple of days before a Grand Tour then you have to wonder. It seemed to be prevalent in the Classics.”

When asked why the Classics and not the Grand Tours, McQuaid said: “I don’t know. The Grand Tours were more when allergies come into play with the summer. That doesn’t happen in the Classics.”

The issue here isn't that TUEs are clearly being abused for the Classics - it's the scale of the problem. Westra says it's every rider of note with a doctor's note. Does the evidence support this claim?

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

lol @Apr (classics, pre-giro) and jun(pre-tour)

The UCI have made no secret of the fact that there is and has been a problem WRT TUEs and the Classics. Here's McQuaid, for instance:

“I do remember having a discussion with Zorzoli and he told me that at the Classics there were riders who were looking to win or do well and were taking corticosteroids during that period on a TUE. He felt that it wasn’t a genuine TUE but that it was just to help them.”

McQuaid went on:

“We felt it [the TUE system – ed.] was being abused during the Classics. It wasn’t the case that it was being abused in general. If a rider asks for a TUE a couple of days before a Grand Tour then you have to wonder. It seemed to be prevalent in the Classics.”

When asked why the Classics and not the Grand Tours, McQuaid said: “I don’t know. The Grand Tours were more when allergies come into play with the summer. That doesn’t happen in the Classics.”

The issue here isn't that TUEs are clearly being abused for the Classics - it's the scale of the problem. Westra says it's every rider of note with a doctor's note. Does the evidence support this claim?

Bolded bit - Luckily there's no evidence of anyone doing that. Especially not three years in a row

 

[samhocking]

It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?

If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.

The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.

Sorry thought you were discussing the number of TUEs UCI granted annually. For athletes requiring life-long TUE, the initial TUE (a new pro) is typically granted for 12 months by UCI, then renewed for 10 years the next year with a medical review every 5 years. Therefore 15 TUEs might only see a renewal once or twice in the whole career of a Novo Nordisk rider and wouldn't skew the figures much at all. Most would be carried over from when they were lower level athletes anyway, so not even renewed by UCI in most riders international careers.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It makes understanding the UCI's figures difficulty. Do they count TUEs they recognise as TUEs issued? And as you say, the numbers are already squiffy. Consider Novo Nordisk's 15 insulin TUEs, which are presumably multi-year in duration and so spread over several years in the table, if in the table at all. Ditto the issue of renewals, are they new TUEs, reported in the stats, or something else? So what value are the numbers: they don't relate to the whole of the sport, just the RTP element and we don't really know what they include.

One value they have is distraction: the real issue with TUEs is often with things that don't need a TUE. IC use of certain products, where there's thresholds, or OOC use of other products without the need for a TUE. Banning TUEs doesn't change Froome's Vuelta fail, does it even impact the Jiffy Bag?

If we assume that it was triamcinolone acetonide in the jiffy bag and that is was administered after midnight then no, it doesn't as no TUE would be required.

As you say, TUE debates are a good distraction though.

The way it works in terms of new TUE applications is based on what level of athlete you are. If you are an international level athlete or if you've entered in an international event you must submit your TUE Application to your Inrternational Federation (UCI), which is responsible for accepting applications and granting TUEs, not your NADO/NGB.

If you are a national or lower level athlete, you submit your TUE Application to your NADO.

So in pro cycling, only your domestic pro/semi-pro would apply to NGB. If they wanted to race outside their country and required a new TUE, that would go to UCI. Every World Tour rider would submit TUE applications to UCI.

Yes, we are well aware of this. It was covered several posts ago and isn't the issue that was being discussed.

Sorry thought you were discussing the number of TUEs UCI granted annually. For athletes requiring life-long TUE, the initial TUE (a new pro) is typically granted for 12 months by UCI, then renewed for 10 years the next year with a medical review every 5 years. Therefore 15 TUEs might only see a renewal once or twice in the whole career of a Novo Nordisk rider and wouldn't skew the figures much at all. Most would be carried over from when they were lower level athletes anyway, so not even renewed by UCI in most riders international careers.

Samsplaining...

 

[samhocking]

WADAsplaining

TUE validity and recommended review process
The initial TUE request must include details of the onset, investigation and
diagnosis of the condition, with supporting documentation from a specialist in the
management of diabetes, or a unit specializing in the management of diabetes. It
is recommended that an initial TUE is granted for 12 months. After 12 months, the
TUE should be reviewed (with documentation obtained from the General
Practitioner and the specialist, or specialist unit) and a further TUE granted for 10
years. Thereafter, the TUE should be reviewed every 5 years, following receipt of
the documentation listed above.

 

[King Boonen]

Sorry thought you were discussing the number of TUEs UCI granted annually. For athletes requiring life-long TUE, the initial TUE (a new pro) is typically granted for 12 months by UCI, then renewed for 10 years the next year with a medical review every 5 years. Therefore 15 TUEs might only see a renewal once or twice in the whole career of a Novo Nordisk rider and wouldn't skew the figures much at all. Most would be carried over from when they were lower level athletes anyway, so not even renewed by UCI in most riders international careers.

That's only for Diabetes. Asthma is usually 1 year, then four years, with a review every year. The problem is whether the renewal counts towards the statistics and what can be renewed and when.

There are further problems. If a rider has previously had a TUE for prednisolone and required it again for the same condition does this fall under new or renewal?

It all means there's no way the UCI number can be taken at face value.

 

[samhocking]

Renewal of an existing TUE would not coincide with a riders desired race if they wanted to abuse the TUE system though like Westra. There's very few banned substances that are granted under TUE anyway. Therefore all riders abusing TUE today by faking injury would be included in UCI's annually granted TUE figure because only UCI can grant those international athletes the TUE anyway.