UCI helped Froome with illegal(?) TUE at Romandie

[gooner]

And beyond that, the ever famous:

Again, Freeman clearly admitted back in 2011 they wouldn't do that in such instances.

 

[red_flanders]

Again, Freeman clearly admitted back in 2011 they wouldn't do that in such instances.

I'll admit it's been difficult for me to keep track of which Sky statements are supposed to be true and which I'm supposed to ignore.

 

[gooner]

I'll admit it's been difficult for me to keep track of which Sky statements are supposed to be true and which I'm supposed to ignore.

I didn't know about the Uran one myself until it was pointed out a couple of days back in a newspaper over here.

From memory if I'm not wrong, Farrell told Walsh last year he gave two TUEs since he's been at Sky.

 

[froooome]

Here’s a weird thing. In cycling, corticosteroids are banned on race days, but not at any other time. So, you have a series of performance enhancing products (the glucocorticoid family, widely called ‘cortico’), which you can take, in massive doses, during training, without fear. As long as you stop your ‘course’ ahead of your race day, you’re clean as a whistle, good to go.

Do you see how that works? You can take corticosteroids (Synacthen, Kenacort, Decadron and the rest) and charge up like a mule while you train between races. And if an anti-doping team rock up and demand an out of competition sample, well, no worries, you pee freely.

Really?

http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/alejandro-marque-cortisone-confusion-tour-of-portugal-2013/

 

[thehog]

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

Pants on fire.

 

[thehog]

Really?

http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/alejandro-marque-cortisone-confusion-tour-of-portugal-2013/

And there it is....

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

While I don't particularly agree my post was a farcical representation of what you said, I'll accept your overall point about misrepresenting you, and apologise for any looseness of language on my part - it wasn't meant as a strawman, but was simply exasperation at the way theories end up taking on the guise of facts on this forum, so apologies for any offence caused.*

But yeah, I have no idea how sick Froome was (if at all), what effects the medicine had on his immediate health, or what long-term health impacts the medicine might have had.

Since he rode the prologue 'clean' (so to speak with regards to the TUE) and came 13th, it's not beyond my imagination to think that physiologically he might have been able to function to a pretty high-level in any case, but that he 'felt' awful (especially afterwards) and as a result the prospect of carrying on and forcing a performance out was not enticing.

It's also not beyond my imagination that the prescribed medicine might have been effective not only in both clearing his physiological potential (so say he was only at 95% of his peak in the prologue, the medicine helped him give nearer to 100% afterwards) - which is after all the point of medicine - but also might have made him 'feel' amazing, enough that it helped him overcome any lingering physiological effects of the illness (having seen my dad on some kind of steroids last year, they clearly can effect energy levels dramatically (and quickly)).

Indeed, given they are classified as performance enhancing drugs in 'normal' circumstances it's not beyond my imagination that the negative effects of an illness (that, as evidenced by the prologue, may have been more psychological than physiological in any case) may have been outweighed by the positive impact of performance of the performance enhancing medicine. It also may be that in Sky's view there was no perceived 'long-term' risk of sticking in the race (as maybe the illness was considered mild, maybe the drugs don't have a long-term impact), and since they were there anyway they decided to play it by ear and see what happened. (In the same way that they put Thomas back on his bike at last year's tour with a broken pelvis).

I don't know of course. And there's legitimate ethical questions about that course of conduct in any case. But this seems more plausible to me than a scenario whereby they got to LBL, realised Froome was glowing, entered him into Romandie and raced the prologue anyway, and then presumably realised he was still glowing, so contacted the UCI for a TUE the evening after the prologue in order to continue racing. I mean, if he was glowing and they knew it, why not withdraw from Romandie? Or why not apply for the TUE before the race, or even the morning of the prologue? Certainly it makes no sense - if they knew before the prologue he was still 'glowing' - to race it anyway and only then apply for a TUE (with no certainty they'd get it) - what if he'd won and was tested? Or was just randomly tested as the favourite?

*And for what it's worth you may want to reflect as to whether you own sensitivity to people questioning your point of view might contribute to discussions going down the toilet, just an observation.

 

[Stingray34]

A double espresso in a finish bottle

Does anybody else find that a tiny bit ewww?

What's wrong with a coke?

 

[RownhamHill]

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

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise that 'regular' TUEs were all for substances that aren't banned. Thanks for clarifying.

Do carry on.

 

[Hawkwood]

A double espresso in a finish bottle

Does anybody else find that a tiny bit ewww?

What's wrong with a coke?

Espresso please I hate coke, and I must give this a go. I'm beginning to realise that what with my range of mild illnesses I'm already armed to the teeth with asthma and blood pressure medications, and tramadol, and I've got an espresso machine!

 

[thehog]

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise that 'regular' TUEs were all for substances that aren't banned. Thanks for clarifying.

Do carry on.

However the process to request one outside the standard rules is for "acute" and "exceptional" circumstances. Not to aid a super human performance.

But do carry in attempting to downplay the abuse of horse steroids.

 

[Stingray34]

Espresso please I hate coke, and I must give this a go. I'm beginning to realise that what with my range of mild illnesses I'm already armed to the teeth with asthma and blood pressure medications, and tramadol, and I've got an espresso machine!

I suppose an iced frappe would work ok. Let me know how it goes!

 

[Winterfold]

A double espresso in a finish bottle

Does anybody else find that a tiny bit ewww?

What's wrong with a coke?

Caffeine in double espresso = 150-180mg

Caffeine in coke = 35mg

I think that answers your question...

 

[Hawkwood]

I suppose an iced frappe would work ok. Let me know how it goes!

Not even iced frappe for me, it has to be hardcore espresso, I have a real espresso machine, plus an old school Cimbali grinder. Not sure I'd like take a cocktail of espresso, tramadol, losartan potassium and asthma meds all at the same time though! If I ever do I'll report back.

 

[thehog]

Caffeine in double espresso = 150-180mg

Caffeine in coke = 35mg

I think that answers your question...

The sodium phosphate in coke supposedly is meant to give a little extra than a plain coffee would.

And the sugar. A mix of both is a good combination.

 

[red_flanders]

I didn't know about the Uran one myself until it was pointed out a couple of days back in a newspaper over here.

From memory if I'm not wrong, Farrell told Walsh last year he gave two TUEs since he's been at Sky.

So we can agree they will say whatever suits them whenever it suits them, as has been shown probably a dozen times already, to be conservative. Yes?

 

[RownhamHill]

However the process to request one outside the standard rules is for "acute" and "exceptional" circumstances. Not to aid a super human performance.

But do carry in attempting to downplay the abuse of horse steroids.

It's funny really, because in your desire to generally troll and abuse people you don't seem to be able to understand what they're saying, or what they think.

 

[Rollthedice]

Thing is we would have never known, if not for JDD article, that Froome won Romandie on steroids. I wonder if Quintana asked for a TUE in Giro for some corticosteroids to treat his condition, maybe worse than Froome's. The Inhaler wants to win at all costs.

 

[Benotti69]

Thing is we would have never known, if not for JDD article, that Froome won Romandie on steroids. I wonder if Quintana asked for a TUE in Giro for some corticosteroids to treat his condition, maybe worse than Froome's. The Inhaler wants to win at all costs.

If Cookson was anti doping first thing he could do is to make all teams TUEs public.

 

[Catwhoorg]

If Cookson was anti doping first thing he could do is to make all teams TUEs public.

Arguably that would be illegal under EU law. Unless phased in on new contracts/licenses (And even then its pretty shaky grounds)

Right to privacy in regards medical records.

 

[King Boonen]

If Cookson was anti doping first thing he could do is to make all teams TUEs public.

No. There are several things on the WADA list that are used for genuine medical problems that are private and should remain so unless the athlete wants to talk about it.

 

[thehog]

It's funny really, because in your desire to generally troll and abuse people you don't seem to be able to understand what they're saying, or what they think.

I don't think it's funny at all.

I had no idea Froome beat Tony Martin in the ITT because he was on high octane steroids.

I would have never have know if it wasn't for the diligence and investigative reporting of the French newspaper. Something we'd probably expect Walsh to have done.

If you think that's trolling then I believe you don't really want to seek the truth. Just what goes along with your favorite rider/team.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If Cookson was anti doping he would have never been elected

Fixed that for you.

Cookson has pressure from every direction that matters ($$$) to keep the theater going. From the sports administration perspective issuing TUE's contrary to WADA standard is always the right thing to do.

And why not? The UCI is the final authority on all anti-doping matters in the sport. Discussions about sick riders racing is just a distraction from the fact no one pays any mind to WADA standards.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Thing is we would have never known, if not for JDD article, that Froome won Romandie on steroids. I wonder if Quintana asked for a TUE in Giro for some corticosteroids to treat his condition, maybe worse than Froome's. The Inhaler wants to win at all costs.

Quintana has TUE for Growth Hormone to treat his dwarfism.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

About froome @ LBL rumor back then was that he did not even travel to Belgium and was only lined up because ASO asked Sky to do so (because it was the 100th edition and they wanted the Tour de France winner to line up). - search