Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE's)

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

I know, and they should not, in a better world, but i'm not the one trying to pass the decision to take a TUE as a choice between death and disgrace (a bit hyperbolic FMK no?) when there is also the possibility to simply not compete.

It will never cease to amuse me how those who open with hyperbolic statements calling for all TUEs to be banned quickly admit exceptions to their brave new world.

"You have a permanent problem, like diabetes? OK, you can be an exception, once we get a doctor to confirm the situation. You need a banned drug for an injury? You can be an exception, but you'll have to stop competing for a period of time."

How is that different to the situation we have today? Will it just be a name change? We'll call them Medical Need Exceptions, will we?

So what is actually meant by such radical calls to ban all TUEs? Is it just AD virtue signalling? Frustration? "I'm angry now. Look, this is how angry I am, I'm willing to say something very, very, stupid. Because I'm angry."

Virtually nobody who calls for the banning of all TUEs is actually willing to defend such a ban to the hilt, to admit that athletes with certain permanent medical conditions will be banned from all WADA-accredited sport, which includes the Paralympics. Virtually nobody who calls for the banning of all TUEs is actually willing to defend such a ban to the hilt, to admit that athletes in extreme situations with be asked to choose between death and disgrace. Virtually nobody who calls for the banning of all TUEs is actually willing to defend such a ban to the hilt, to admit that this is a fascistic vision of sport, games for the übermensch.

Death and disgrace, please, what about not competing? No one is entitled to a pro sport career, and yes, it kinda has an "for the übermensch" character, that's the nature of pro sport, it's for people winning the genetic lottery regarding physical capacity. If it isn't, why not legalise doping, after all the people with low natural testosterone might take objection that the diabetics have the right to replace their insulin with an exogenous source while they cannot.
As for being angry, you should reread your production here, you are a treasure trove of informations and a good read, but you get kinda aggressive and personal when you disagree with someone, which tend to happens quite a lot.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

No one is entitled to a pro sport career, and yes, it kinda has an "for the übermensch" character, that's the nature of pro sport, it's for people winning the genetic lottery regarding physical capacity.

Just so the moderators are aware, if, in the future, I should refer to you as "the fascist ColonelKidneyBeans" you're going to be cool with that, right? Cause that is what you're admitting to, right?

As for being angry, you should reread your production here, you are a treasure trove of informations and a good read, but you get kinda aggressive and personal when you disagree with someone, which tend to happens quite a lot.

It will never cease to amuse me how many people round here can't read. Even when you tell them you're amused they feel all hurt and abused and accuse you of being angry. Honey, when I'm angry, I promise, you'll *** know it. :lol:

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

No one is entitled to a pro sport career, and yes, it kinda has an "for the übermensch" character, that's the nature of pro sport, it's for people winning the genetic lottery regarding physical capacity.

Just so the moderators are aware, if, in the future, I should refer to you as "the fascist ColonelKidneyBeans" you're going to be cool with that, right? Cause that is what you're admitting to, right?

As for being angry, you should reread your production here, you are a treasure trove of informations and a good read, but you get kinda aggressive and personal when you disagree with someone, which tend to happens quite a lot.

It will never cease to amuse me how many people round here can't read. Even when you tell them you're amused they feel all hurt and abused and accuse you of being angry. Honey, when I'm angry, I promise, you'll **** know it. :lol:

I was wondering how long i was going to wait for it to come to that point, it was pretty obvious why you would use terms like übermensch, call me a fascist if you want, pro sport has nothing to do with politics... Congratulations for the reductio ad hitlerum tough.
I don't feel hurt or angry at all, maybe you should not make assumptions about the emotional state and the motivations of total strangers on an internet forum. If you are not angry yourself, i'd like to see what you would call me if you were. After all nothing exudes calmness like calling someone a fascist for a disagreement about TUE's.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

maybe you should not make assumptions about the emotional state and the motivations of total strangers on an internet forum.

It wasn't me making an assumption. I asked a question. You didn't.

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

maybe you should not make assumptions about the emotional state and the motivations of total strangers on an internet forum.

It wasn't me making an assumption. I asked a question. You didn't.

The question being? and i didn't what? (sorry i can't read, that much is clear :razz: )

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

sorry i can't read, that much is clear

This much we established several comments back.

 

[Craigee]

Re: Re:

Shouldn't be any TUE's.

I'm an athlete. I'm ill. I need a banned drug. Do I risk my health and refuse or accept a four year ban for doping? Death or disgrace, which?

You sound like Choppy Warburton.

You sound like Colin from the Fast Show.

Whose this Colin from the Fast Show? Another British Doper?

 

[saganftw]

just let people dope already

 

[Robert5091]

Re:

just let people dope already

I hate to tell you this, but I think some already do ...

 

[samhocking]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?
I'd say the TUE system was abused in the past simply because UCI lacked resources with just one single doctor called Zorzoli who would never be able to logistically cross-reference +200 TUEs applications per year across several thousand athletes spread around the globe to confirm medical need or confirm abuse. The bets you could hope for is he could probably process 200 forms a year, not confirm legitimacy of each one. That is the teams doctors role.
End of the day the teams doctors are the ones who wrote each TUE application out at the demands of the rider/coach/team staff. I think the TUEC set-up works pretty well now and clearly very few are now granted anyway.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?

No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

 

[Parker]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?

No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?

No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.

Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.

Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency

 

[glassmoon]

Re: Re:

just let people dope already

I hate to tell you this, but I think some already do ...

Some? My guess would be some rarely don't

 

[King Boonen]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?

No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.

Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.

Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency

That's not about applying for a new TUE though, that's about recognition of previously granted TUEs when you are not part of the UCI registered testing pool. For example, a rider with a TUE for insulin that was granted by their NADO who was added to the RTP afterwards would have this TUE automatically recognised if it were from one of those bodies.

The issue with the UCI number is there is no way to know if it includes renewals or not and what constitutes a renewal as far as I'm aware. As he's the obvious example, once Wiggins was given a first TUE for triamcinolone, does every subsequent TUE count as a renewal or a new application? I've not been able to find a satisfactory answer and this could mean that the number of active TUEs (for want of a better phrase) is many times the UCI quoted number.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I don't even think TUE's are an issue today. What were there last year? Less than 20 in total across UCI Road, Track, BMX, MTB & Indoor UCI sanctioned competition?

No matter how many times this stat gets corrected, it keeps getting quoted. This refers solely to TUEs issued by the UCI. The UCI is not the sole agency issuing TUEs in cycling.

There is an elite testing pool of about 1300 cyclists. They can only get a TUE from the UCI.

Not quite. It seems the word only has a different meaning in Aigle.

Please note that the UCI automatically recognizes TUEs decisions made by the following NADOs.

This means that if a rider’s TUE has been delivered by a NADO listed below, he/she does not need to apply to the UCI for recognition of that TUE, insofar as the TUE is still valid. The TUE is automatically recognised by the UCI, without further action required by the Rider.

• NADO of the French Community of Belgium
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport
• Agence Française de lutte contre le dopage
• Agencia Española de Protección de la Salud en el Deporte
• Antidoping Switzerland
• Antidoping Denmark
• NADO Vlaanderen
• National Anti-Doping Agency Austria
• Anti-Doping Norway
• UK Anti-Doping
• South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• Swedish Sports Confederation
• Nationale Anti Doping Agentur Deutschland
• International Paralympic Committee
• Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
• NADO Italia
• Sport Ireland
• Anti-Doping Autoriteit Nederland
• Anti-Doping Agency of Serbia
• Slovenian Anti-Doping Organisation
• Finnish Anti-Doping Agency

That's not about applying for a new TUE though, that's about recognition of previously granted TUEs when you are not part of the UCI registered testing pool. For example, a rider with a TUE for insulin that was granted by their NADO who was added to the RTP afterwards would have this TUE automatically recognised if it were from one of those bodies.

The issue with the UCI number is there is no way to know if it includes renewals or not and what constitutes a renewal as far as I'm aware. As he's the obvious example, once Wiggins was given a first TUE for triamcinolone, does every subsequent TUE count as a renewal or a new application? I've not been able to find a satisfactory answer and this could mean that the number of active TUEs (for want of a better phrase) is many times the UCI quoted number.

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?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

*Side note: Alex Dowsett is the only nutter in the peloton with haemophillia, right?

He is the only one I am aware of. If there are others, they certainly aren't as vocal about their condition.

 

[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.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re: Re:

*Side note: Alex Dowsett is the only nutter in the peloton with haemophillia, right?

He is the only one I am aware of. If there are others, they certainly aren't as vocal about their condition.

NOTE! Just in case anyone wonders where this came from.
This is a reply to a post that was deleted as per my request. It is not there anymore, it has gone to the eternal threads of incredibly stupid posts.

 

[Bardamu]

Re:

TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?

All of Vacansoleil. I've never heard that accusation with regards to GVA.

 

[glassmoon]

Re: Re:

TUEs should be canned all-together. Join the paralympics if you have asthma or diabetes. Most TUEs are fabrications anyway.

I agree, riders like Wellens, Mathieu VdP and Dumoulin all have stated as well it's better to get rid of TUEs because the abuse of it is too easy.

Of the current peloton Gilbert and Van Avermaet have often been accused of TUE abuse, Van Aert as well. Which other riders have used the TUE excuse a bit too often?

All of Vacansoleil. I've never heard that accusation with regards to GVA.

+1
chapeau to them

 

[fmk_RoI]

WRT Westra's claim that "Every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics and other big competitions."

First, if this is true, what happened to Fabian Cancellara's medical certificates? When Fancy Bears released his TUEs, they weren't there, were they?

Second, in 2014, Mario Zozoli gave a presentation on TUEs and glucocorticoids. According to him, in the period 2009-2014, the UCI issued 122 TUEs for glucocorticoids. He also provided a breakdown showing how glucocorticoid TUEs were spread over the year:

(Note: the bars add up to more than 100%, so either the chart has been mislabelled and this relates to all the 122 glucocorticoid TUEs, or there's something else going on, possibly to do with the period of validity of a TUE, or just incompetence.)

If we take Zorzoli's numbers as right, the UCI were issuing 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs a year and, of those 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs, five or six each year were being issued in April. Does that square with Westra's claim that "every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics"?

 

[mojomonkey]

Re:

(Note: the bars add up to more than 100%, so either the chart has been mislabelled and this relates to all the 122 glucocorticoid TUEs, or there's something else going on, possibly to do with the period of validity of a TUE, or just incompetence.)

If we take Zorzoli's numbers as right, the UCI were issuing 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs a year and, of those 20 to 25 glucocorticoid TUEs, five or six each year were being issued in April. Does that square with Westra's claim that "every rider of note provided a medical certificate for the Classics"?

Also, what happened to October?

 

[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.