UCI helped Froome with illegal(?) TUE at Romandie

[red_flanders]

Actually the bold bit is fact - it was taken after a TUE. Whether he was ill or not is as you say claimed by SKY and the UCI, I didnt comment on that though.

We know that is claimed. We don't know it as a fact.

 

[RownhamHill]

Were you present when it was taken? Whose word do we have to believe that medication was actually administered after the the TUE was granted? Sky's word, Froome's word?

So are you suggesting that they took the drug before the TUE was granted (for which they would have faced a two year ban had they been picked up in a drugs test on the first day of the race), then went to the trouble of getting the TUE (I think I read somewhere here it's normally prescribed as a six day course), and then didn't bother to take any more of it?

Or are you suggesting that they didn't take the drug at all (either before or after), and they just applied for the TUE either for ****s and giggles, ss a test for when they might need it in future, or some other reason I can't think of right now? (Maybe they got the TUE, in order to deliberately leak it and troll the clinic?)

Because on the face of it, the idea that a team would go to the trouble of getting a TUE (for whatever reasons, nefarious or otherwise) and then not bother to take the drug afterwards doesn't really sound that likely - especially if it was a team of inveterate drugs cheats; it would be like inviting a bank robber into the vault and asking him to help himself with no liability. . .

 

[RownhamHill]

We know that is claimed. We don't know it as a fact.

It's a pretty safe assumption though that once the TUE was granted the team took 'advantage' of the dispensation it provided, no?

 

[thehog]

So are you suggesting that they took the drug before the TUE was granted (for which they would have faced a two year ban had they been picked up in a drugs test on the first day of the race), then went to the trouble of getting the TUE (I think I read somewhere here it's normally prescribed as a six day course), and then didn't bother to take any more of it?

Or are you suggesting that they didn't take the drug at all (either before or after), and they just applied for the TUE either for ****s and giggles, ss a test for when they might need it in future, or some other reason I can't think of right now? (Maybe they got the TUE, in order to deliberately leak it and troll the clinic?)

Because on the face of it, the idea that a team would go to the trouble of getting a TUE (for whatever reasons, nefarious or otherwise) and then not bother to take the drug afterwards doesn't really sound that likely - especially if it was a team of inveterate drugs cheats; it would be like inviting a bank robber into the vault and asking him to help himself with no liability. . .

Hence why he finished down the field in the prologue?

 

[GJB123]

So are you suggesting that they took the drug before the TUE was granted (for which they would have faced a two year ban had they been picked up in a drugs test on the first day of the race), then went to the trouble of getting the TUE (I think I read somewhere here it's normally prescribed as a six day course), and then didn't bother to take any more of it?

Or are you suggesting that they didn't take the drug at all (either before or after), and they just applied for the TUE either for ****s and giggles, ss a test for when they might need it in future, or some other reason I can't think of right now? (Maybe they got the TUE, in order to deliberately leak it and troll the clinic?)

Because on the face of it, the idea that a team would go to the trouble of getting a TUE (for whatever reasons, nefarious or otherwise) and then not bother to take the drug afterwards doesn't really sound that likely - especially if it was a team of inveterate drugs cheats; it would be like inviting a bank robber into the vault and asking him to help himself with no liability. . .

Do you think Armstring actually used a saddle sore cream after he got the TUE? But granted the more likely solution in this case seems to be, he took it anyway. Point is, we don't know for sure, do we? As stated above it is an assumptions, perhaps even a safe assumption, he took it after receiving the TUE, but fact is we do not know for sure.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Amazing. You or I get an infection of any sort, the doctor prescribes us a small bottle of antibiotics, we often have to be pretty sick to even get them. Froom gets an infection that no one is even aware of he has, and he gets steroids, and what appears to be a limitless uncontrolled quantity.

 

[Tom T.]

Somebody's probably already pointed this out, but this is starting to feel a lot like 1999 all over again.

 

[Catwhoorg]

The dose is exactly in line with the standard doses given in the UK, and the standard dose is normally given for 7 days.

Lets stop with the 'horse dose' comments. (or unlimited amounts)

There are enough valid things to discuss about this issue without using this level of hyperbole.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Somebody's probably already pointed this out, but this is starting to feel a lot like 1999 all over again.

And has been so, since 2012.

 

[Benotti69]

It's a pretty safe assumption though that once the TUE was granted the team took 'advantage' of the dispensation it provided, no?

No way, the Clean Team aka TeamSky, take advantage, never, how dare you.....


What was it Brailsford said, 'you dont say i am going to cheat on monday but not tuesday, wednesday.........'

 

[Benotti69]

And has been so, since 2012.

I would have said it has been feeling like 1999, since 1999.......

 

[Danielovich]

What are the chances at being sick, getting medicine and then winning a race ?

I mean, if you're sick and need to take meds for it, then IMO you're not even capable of riding a stage-race. And certainly not winning it.

It should be simple stuff to acknowledge, for anyone, it's common sense. When you're sick and need meds, you don't win a stage-race.

This is not pushing the boundaries of the rules, it's making them fit into your own world.

 

[MatParker117]

Somebody's probably already pointed this out, but this is starting to feel a lot like 1999 all over again.

How this is this in anyway similar? All Sky did was follow what appears to be an incredibly flawed process and for further information here's what the MPCC rules actually say:

“Local corticosteroid injections must be validated by the physician in charge of the team, which prescribe mandatory minimum eight days off work and competition.”

Froome's TUE was for an oral dose.

 

[Will Carter]

Bahahahhahahahahahaaaa.

This is what I was referring to:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Excerpt:

The UCI had those documents, and an investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe, went to the UCI and said, "Can I have copies of Lance Armstrong's doping control forms from the '99 Tour?" Now, the UCI had to go to Lance Armstrong and ask his permission, which he gave them. Now, Lance Armstrong gave permission to the UCI to give these doping control forms to Damien Ressiot. Damien Ressiot took those forms, which have the athlete's name, obviously, and the sample number, so he matched the sample number with the results from the laboratory that had the sample number and the percentage of isoforms. And in that way he linked the percentage of isoforms with the number, the athlete's name, and in that way identified them as Lance Armstrong.

 

[the sceptic]

How this is this in anyway similar? All Sky did was follow what appears to be an incredibly flawed process and for further information here's what the MPCC rules actually say:

Froome's TUE was for an oral dose.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/all-tue-requests-will-now-pass-through-a-committee-says-uci

So the UCI admit they made a mistake with the Dawgs express TUE. So we can now say that Dawg definitely cheated yes? I think he should be removed from the Romandie lists. Give Spilak the win that he would have rightfully got if not for Dawg cheating with horse steroids.

 

[RownhamHill]

Do you think Armstring actually used a saddle sore cream after he got the TUE? But granted the more likely solution in this case seems to be, he took it anyway. Point is, we don't know for sure, do we?

Do I think Armstrong actually used a saddle sore cream after (or before) he got the TUE? No of course not.

Do I think Armstrong actually continued to use the particular cortisone derivative that he tested positive for, and had to get a fake TUE for in the first place, after he got the fake TUE? Yes, of course I do. In fact, if you suggested to me that he stopped using cortisone in that tour, after he got explicit permission to do so, I'd think you were insane.

As stated above it is an assumptions, perhaps even a safe assumption, he took it after receiving the TUE, but fact is we do not know for sure.

You're right, we can't possibly 'know' for sure. I would bet all my money in the world on it being the case though.

 

[thehog]

How this is this in anyway similar? All Sky did was follow what appears to be an incredibly flawed process and for further information here's what the MPCC rules actually say:

Froome's TUE was for an oral dose.

Lets see:

1. rider that won race has TUE for otherwise banned substance. check
2. facts are leaked by the French press. check
3. rider has claimed never having any TUEs, performances are as clean as the driven snow. check
4. UCI official involved in according of TUE. check
5. UCI says everything is OK, everybody move on please. check
6. trolls abound to discredit any discussion about wrong doings. check

The big difference so far is that I haven't seen anything about TUE-holding rider making generous donations to UCI. Yet.

(Stolen from FrenchFry - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1492874&postcount=193 )

 

[RownhamHill]

No way, the Clean Team aka TeamSky, take advantage, never, how dare you.....


What was it Brailsford said, 'you dont say i am going to cheat on monday but not tuesday, wednesday.........'

So you agree with my assumption that Froome definitely did take the banned performance enhancing drugs that he received special dispensation from the UCI to use in the race with impunity, rather than just looked at them on the shelf?

What was it Brailsford said, 'We're pushing the guys to their limits, so we need to look after them. It's about genuine medical practice'

 

[Will Carter]

Were you present when it was taken? Whose word do we have to believe that medication was actually administered after the the TUE was granted? Sky's word, Froome's word?

Ok, if we want to go down that route then have you been present with Froome for every hour since the TUE was approved? No so you can't say he hasn't.

My point was in response to Mr Tibbs who said 'Taken in Race'. If in fact it was taken in the race then it was after the TUE was granted.

If no more was taken then Mr Tibbs point becomes invalid.

If we want to get in to the realms of who we do / don't believe in the whole story then we should scroll back to page 1 shouldn't we?

 

[Will Carter]

Amazing. You or I get an infection of any sort, the doctor prescribes us a small bottle of antibiotics, we often have to be pretty sick to even get them. Froom gets an infection that no one is even aware of he has, and he gets steroids, and what appears to be a limitless uncontrolled quantity.

'Uncontrolled Quantity'? It was (according to the news reports - so this is claimed and not fact mind you) that it was for 40mg a day. That is the standard dose for that ailment for an adult and not an uncontrolled quantity.

 

[the sceptic]

'Uncontrolled Quantity'? It was (according to the news reports - so this is claimed and not fact mind you) that it was for 40mg a day. That is the standard dose for that ailment for an adult and not an uncontrolled quantity.

How do you feel about the fact that the UCI are now changing their policy, thus admitting their mistake? Do you think Froome should be removed from the list?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Cookson has been on the job for around 9 months. Campaigned big time on anti-doping, transparency, and reform. How is it possible that the UCI had no TUE committee as required by WADA Code all this time, and Cookie didn't know it until a French newspaper brought up the subject? How is it possible that a new committee of new, untainted, fresh people wasn't put into place long ago? The TUE issues are a big, big part of doping gray areas.

Cookson should be careful about over-delegating. As President, the buck stops with him.

 

[Will Carter]

Lets see:

1. rider that won race has TUE for otherwise banned substance. check
2. facts are leaked by the French press. check
3. rider has claimed never having any TUEs, performances are as clean as the driven snow. check
4. UCI official involved in according of TUE. check
5. UCI says everything is OK, everybody move on please. check
6. trolls abound to discredit any discussion about wrong doings. check

The big difference so far is that I haven't seen anything about TUE-holding rider making generous donations to UCI. Yet.

(Stolen from FrenchFry - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1492874&postcount=193 )

You raise 6 points there HOG.

#3: I believe he only confirmed he hadn't raced the Tour in 2013 with a TUE (I could be mistaken or Sky did), but even so if that statement was in the book then the book would (likely) already have been written before the TDR (correct with link if I am mistaken).

#4: You apply to the UCI for a TUE and then the UCI (presumably a UCI official ...) grants it. This is an invalid point.

#5: Since it followed due process what else are they to say. Again an invalid point.

#6: Happens for all discussions, not really sure what it proves.


Honestly HOG you're beginning to undermine your own well structured and valid arguments by making posts like this.

 

[red_flanders]

You raise 6 points there HOG.

#3: I believe he only confirmed he hadn't raced the Tour in 2013 with a TUE (I could be mistaken or Sky did), but even so if that statement was in the book then the book would (likely) already have been written before the TDR (correct with link if I am mistaken).

#4: You apply to the UCI for a TUE and then the UCI (presumably a UCI official ...) grants it. This is an invalid point.

#5: Since it followed due process what else are they to say. Again an invalid point.

#6: Happens for all discussions, not really sure what it proves.


Honestly HOG you're beginning to undermine your own well structured and valid arguments by making posts like this.

I'll give up after this, but the point is that both the teams and the UCI have historically lied in situations like this. Regularly.

Many people who have seen these situations as masks for doping (facts adjusted to fit the "illness" narrative) don't trust either player to tell the truth. All we know is what the UCI and Sky are telling us and WADA to some extent. We don't know anything beyond that.

Many people do not assume the statements by either player to be true, particularly where they have massive self-interest in lying and have been proven to lie before.

 

[Fzotrlool]

Changes ahead?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...ue-procedures-in-wake-of-froome-fiasco_333125