UCI helped Froome with illegal(?) TUE at Romandie

[Tinman]

Yeah right, my bad.

So he went ok in the prologue, but coughed a lot and got an emergency TUE for steroids, then proceeded to drop everyone on a MTF and smash everyone in a TT.

Do we know he coughed a lot?

 

[Tinman]

Reduce endogenous? What about exogenous? Coz it's effectively a ratio that triggers a positive, so if ENDo is down, and EXo unaffected, that would not be a good idea.

You are talking BP? Yes if there is existing Exo EPO use the ratio change would presumably trigger a positive. But my assumption would be that the exogenous EPO regime (or rather more likely: the small molecule endo EPO stimulation regime) would have finished say a week ago - during camp - however high glow time - too much endo EPO being produced - is taking longer than expected. Hence the pulling out of L-B-L and asthma symptom excuse and use of a short high dose of catabolic.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If anything the opposite would be true. Exo EPO suppresses endo EPO, which takes time to recover once your exo epo intervention finishes.

Regardless, if your EPO is endogenous, then the isobars appear in the correct place on the graph and you are clear.

 

[TailWindHome]

Y'all really have turned the bonkers up a notch on this one.

Possibilities (in the real world)

1 - Froome was sick - took medicine got better
2 - Froome was sick - needed TUE to cover medicine already in system
3 - Froome wasn't sick - wanted medicine to rider better
4 - Froome wasn't sick - needed TUE to cover drug already in system
5 - Froome wasn't sick - needed TUE to cover drug in system due to PED cocktail

 

[Tinman]

If anything the opposite would be true. Exo EPO suppresses endo EPO, which takes time to recover once your exo epo intervention finishes.

Regardless, if your EPO is endogenous, then the isobars appear in the correct place on the graph and you are clear.

And Haematocrit levels? My assumption would be that a catabolic steroid dose would reduce that.

 

[Tinman]

Y'all really have turned the bonkers up a notch on this one.

Possibilities (in the real world)

1 - Froome was sick - took medicine got better
2 - Froome was sick - needed TUE to cover medicine already in system
3 - Froome wasn't sick - wanted medicine to rider better
4 - Froome wasn't sick - needed TUE to cover drug already in system
5 - Froome wasn't sick - needed TUE to cover drug in system due to PED cocktail

6. Froome wasn't sick - needed TUE to correct abnormal EPO ratios and/or high Haematocrit (not drug in system but effect of earlier drug in system)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And Haematocrit levels? My assumption would be that a catabolic steroid dose would reduce that.

I have read often enough that anabolic steroid use increases Hgb/Hct. Not sure about catabolic steroid effect on blood parameters.

 

[Tinman]

It's an Africa induced cough. 5.50 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt2nqhRkZlM

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's an Africa induced cough. 5.50 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt2nqhRkZlM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yt2nqhRkZlM#t=326

 

[Tinman]

So who leaked the story to Jacky Lassalette at JDD and why?

From the 15 June JDD - google translation:

"The medical department of the UCI probably considered this sport need to run the race at all costs. Leaves to get rid of regulations allowing the rider to take the start of the race when he suffered from health problems incompatible with its participation.

Before the Tour de Romandie, and Froome had consulted Monaco, where he lives, his personal physician, Dr. Bermon. The latter, measured in its prescription, advised him to continue his usual treatment before, if necessary, add additional corticosteroid spray according to changes in its state. A sheet of medical road good practice but probably deemed insufficient by the Sky doctor, Dr. Alan Farrell.

Dose horse
The latter then made a TUE application relating to the taking of oral corticosteroids in the medical management of the UCI and its head, Dr. Zorzoli, which has allowed solo Froome to ingest a dose of horse corticosteroids for the duration of the Tour de Romandie!

Dysfunction as the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) should not ignore them. The medical department, headed by Dr. Alan Vernec, has already seized of the matter and currently diligent investigation. About Froome, who apostrophized end of May via Twitter doping authorities about the lack of controls during an internship in Tenerife, it would be better to ask the doctor Sky on the deleterious effects of the abuse of steroids, rather than to claim random samples sewn with white thread."

 

[Tinman]

Not only Froome withdrew from L-B-L. Dr. Richard Freeman, long serving Team Sky doctor, who presumably also ordered the TUE (as opposed to Dr. Alan Farrell), also withdrew Kennaugh and Kiryienka.

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...am-skys-chris-froome-withdraws-due-to-illness

 

[red_flanders]

But that TUE would only be for Predisolone surely, since that is the med that they said they would be prescribing. An AFAIK no-one has ever mentioned Pred as a masking agent.

Agreed, no one has. I certainly didn't. I don't get the point. I said at some point the easiest explanation is that they got a TUE for the drug that was in his system.

Since I don't believe he crushed everyone at Romandie with an acute respiratory issue, I start looking for another reason. It would have to be acute for them to get the rush/emergency TUE, right?

So why was he pulled from LBL 3 days previously after coming back from a training block in Tenerife, where according to Froome, he does not get tested? I didn't buy the sick explanation then, I don't buy it now. Certainly I didn't buy it after what he did at Romandie.

I think he was glowing at LBL. At Romandie they got him a TUE for Pred because they could and that was what was left. I could be wrong. But that's my best guess.

 

[red_flanders]

I haven't read all 36 pages yet but I've probably read half of it. So please excuse me if this has been discussed already.

Is it possible that Froome was never ill in the first place when he pulled from LBL? That he simply pulled from LBL in order to make his illness seem probable? And thereby getting urgent access to drugs that would otherwise have been illegal?

Although less far-fetched or colorful than many other theories in this thread (but still far out, I'll admit as much), it answers at least two important questions:

1) Why would Team Sky let a rider with such a serious chest-infection (an infection in urgent need of serious treatments with drugs) ride the Tour of Romandie?

2) How come Froome with a chest infection was able to win the Tour of Romandie and win the TT ahead of riders like Tony Martin and Uran Uran (the latter being in such excellent form in the Giro a week later)?

The answer to both questions is (or rather: could be) that Froome was never ill in the first place. With the recent Dauphine in mind, Froomes results at Romandie seems extraordinary. Froome crashed and had some wounds in Dauphine, and he lost 5 minutes. His performance at Romandie was never the performance of an ill or injured rider.

I have not heard anyone even attempt to explain the bolded. That was always and remains the issue, not the process.

 

[thehog]

I have not heard anyone even attempt to explain the bolded. That was always and remains the issue, not the process.

Agreed.

The UCI statement that "any rider with the same condition" would have received the TUE was absurd.

Because not "any rider" did what Froome did at Romandie. Especially as it was cold and raining on the opening days with one stage shorted to 88km due to snow.

 

[RownhamHill]

I have not heard anyone even attempt to explain the bolded. That was always and remains the issue, not the process.

It's kind of a straw man though isn't it, in the sense that we don't know how serious the illness was, how much the illness actually affected his ability to produce sustained power on a bike, or what the long-term effects of competing while on drugs might be. And given that Team Sky did let him ride, and he won, the question might more interestingly be be why wouldn't Team Sky have let a rider ride with some kind of illness (serious or otherwise) that was being managed by medicine?

Which is an interesting question, and could lead into discussion about the very concept of TUEs, certainly the potential to legally 'game' the TUE system for performance enhancing affect, as well as the particularly machismo culture of road cycling where to 'suffer' is to be professional, and to climb off your bike (even when seriously ill or injured, or dying in the case of Tom Simpson) is to show weakness.*

But no. Let's make an assumption that any malady that requires a TUE is by definition race-ending and debilitating (ignoring the obvious redundancy of the in competition TUE system that implies), and further let's extrapolate that assumption to the certainty that as a result he couldn't have been ill, and then, as we've now established he couldn't possibly have been ill, assume that the Team are obviously lying, and the only plausible explanation is that he was glowing.

Carry on.

*Bear in mind this is the team who last year rode pretty much the entire three week tour with a rider who had a broken pelvis - and rather than condemning the team and the rider for a monumental act of health risking stupidity, as a result Thomas has been venerated as a true hard-man of the road.

 

[TheGame]

Yes I apologise for printing direct passages from Walsh's book which is clearly total bullsh1t. My bad

40mg will kill a horse.

Have a read of the user comment on this site:

http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/04/08/prednisone-side-effects-deal-with-the-devil/

Most after a few days became psychotic.

People only tend to comment about side effects of medicines, if they have the side effects. People who have no side effects don't tend to comment.

A medication Im on if you google you will find countless reports of people having horrendous side effects, and one of the potential side effects is increased risk of suicide.

Ive had no side effects, and am still alive. But I dont feel the need to post that all over the internet to counteract the negative posts.

So your "most after a few days became psychotic" is actually..

"Most people who suffered side effects and decided to comment about it on an internet site suffered some psychosis. But these people reflect a very small percentage of total people taking the drug"

 

[TheGame]

So who leaked the story to Jacky Lassalette at JDD and why?

The director of the Tour de Romandie is a long time friend and Ally of Pat McQuaid. Im sure Pat has no objections to the UCI being hit with scandals to show what a bad job Cookson is doing.

 

[red_flanders]

It's kind of a straw man though isn't it, in the sense that we don't know how serious the illness was, how much the illness actually affected his ability to produce sustained power on a bike, or what the long-term effects of competing while on drugs might be. And given that Team Sky did let him ride, and he won, the question might more interestingly be be why wouldn't Team Sky have let a rider ride with some kind of illness (serious or otherwise) that was being managed by medicine?

Which is an interesting question, and could lead into discussion about the very concept of TUEs, certainly the potential to legally 'game' the TUE system for performance enhancing affect, as well as the particularly machismo culture of road cycling where to 'suffer' is to be professional, and to climb off your bike (even when seriously ill or injured, or dying in the case of Tom Simpson) is to show weakness.*

But no. Let's make an assumption that any malady that requires a TUE is by definition race-ending and debilitating (ignoring the obvious redundancy of the in competition TUE system that implies), and further let's extrapolate that assumption to the certainty that as a result he couldn't have been ill, and then, as we've now established he couldn't possibly have been ill, assume that the Team are obviously lying, and the only plausible explanation is that he was glowing.

Carry on.

*Bear in mind this is the team who last year rode pretty much the entire three week tour with a rider who had a broken pelvis - and rather than condemning the team and the rider for a monumental act of health risking stupidity, as a result Thomas has been venerated as a true hard-man of the road.

Actually quite a good post, then the unfortunate strawman. I never said it was the "only plausible explanation". I said it was my opinion.

This is why discussions go down the toilet. People think they can't make the point unless they turn the other poster's argument into a farcical representation of what was actually said.

I certainly think it's possible that things went as you describe. I just don't think it's the most likely scenario. I think a rider could certainly ride Romandie with a chest infection. Would you put your team leader into that race given the weather and the claimed illness? Would he proceed to dominate the race with such a health issue? Is that really likely? If you are OK to pull from LBL, why risk things at Romandie? I get Froome is a stage racer, but Romandie is a nothing race. They easily could have scrubbed him as they did 3 days before.

 

[thehog]

It's kind of a straw man though isn't it, in the sense that we don't know how serious the illness was, how much the illness actually affected his ability to produce sustained pokwer on a bike, or what the long-term effects of competing while on drugs might be. And given that Team Sky did let him ride, and he won, the question might more interestingly be be why wouldn't Team Sky have let a rider ride with some kind of illness (serious or otherwise) that was being managed by medicine?

Which is an interesting question, and could lead into discussion about the very concept of TUEs, certainly the potential to legally 'game' the TUE system for performance enhancing affect, as well as the particularly machismo culture of road cycling where to 'suffer' is to be professional, and to climb off your bike (even when seriously ill or injured, or dying in the case of Tom Simpson) is to show weakness.*

But no. Let's make an assumption that any malady that requires a TUE is by definition race-ending and debilitating (ignoring the obvious redundancy of the in competition TUE system that implies), and further let's extrapolate that assumption to the certainty that as a result he couldn't have been ill, and then, as we've now established he couldn't possibly have been ill, assume that the Team are obviously lying, and the only plausible explanation is that he was glowing.

Carry on.

*Bear in mind this is the team who last year rode pretty much the entire three week tour with a rider who had a broken pelvis - and rather than condemning the team and the rider for a monumental act of health risking stupidity, as a result Thomas has been venerated as a true hard-man of the road.

I believe you missed the blindingly obvious that the TUE wasn't a regular TUE but one for reasons of "acute" illness and reasons of "exceptional" circumstances.

An exceptional performance it was. Hence why it's a banned substance holding a 2 year suspension for a positive test.

But carry on

 

[Benotti69]

Still find it amazing that posters are still thinking Sky are a clean team.

They are not transparent and they tell lies. In cycling that means doping.

It aint hard to figure.

 

[Stingray34]

Wait!

Stop the Press!

I have the news!

Wanna know what the dawg is on?

This link says everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-mLIdLZZeI

 

[ebandit]

bums on fire

Still find it amazing that posters are still thinking Sky are a clean team.

They are not transparent and they tell lies. In cycling that means doping.

It aint hard to figure.

TUEs/Inhaler/Painkillers are Not doping under WADA code...........please
post again when you can show otherwise

I read far more lies here...................so Team Sky must be cleans

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

TUEs/Inhaler/Painkillers are Not doping under WADA code...........please
post again when you can show otherwise

I read far more lies here...................so Team Sky must be cleans

Mark L

Sky lied about TUEs. Sky lied about being transparent.

I did not say Sky were caught doping (yet), did I, so dont twist.

Keep cheering Sky Mark.

 

[gooner]

Sky lied about TUEs. Sky lied about being transparent.

I did not say Sky were caught doping (yet), did I, so dont twist.

Keep cheering Sky Mark.

I don't understand their position on this. One minute in Walsh's ITS they say they would pull out a rider and in a previous occasion with Uran back in 2011, Freeman said they wouldn't pull a rider like Uran out of race when asked about it. He said TUEs were necessary in such circumstances.

It's contradictory more than anything.

 

[red_flanders]

I believe you missed the blindingly obvious that the TUE wasn't a regular TUE but one for reasons of "acute" illness and reasons of "exceptional" circumstances.

An exceptional performance it was. Hence why it's a banned substance holding a 2 year suspension for a positive test.

But carry on

And beyond that, the ever famous:

We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf.