Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
The 2012 as you mentioned looks legit, but I can't help thinking there is something odd on the 2011 approved TUE which is the one right after Jiffy Bag.

We know they applied for TUE already 30/5/2011, but we don't know for sure whether it was approved or not. Wiggins says it wasn't, Sutton somewhat gives a feeling it was approved.

The approved TUE for 29/6/11 actually states for RAST test performed on June 2011 for gras pollen, thus it can't be the same (can be updated) application as 30/5/11. Any previous TUE doesn't speak about gras pollen allergy nor RAST, but obviously that doesn't prove he didn't have it. In any case, Wiggo went to RAST AFTER the application on 30/5/11, during busy month of racing and training. This TUE also says: "ENT specialist performed endoscopy nasal airway 2/7/11 confirmed diagnosis allergic nasal rhinits, and that is on maximal topical treatment >3 years". So the ENT specialist diagnosis was done 3 days after the validity and expiration of TUE, and let's remember, on the same day as the satrt of TDF. And not to mention Zorzoli's authorization date is 30/6/11, day after TUE validity.

Is it perfectly normal that TUE is handed over and the information of diagnosis that the TUE is based are updated after the validity date of TUE? Do we all believe Wiggo was on ENT specialist same day as he started TDF?

I get a feeling there was a level of hurry and "panic" within Sky during month June with Wiggo's allergy TUE and conveniently the Jiffy Bag saga is just in the middle of it, but maybe there is a legic explanation to all this. I think we would all like to hear it from the mouth of Freeman and Wiggo.
Have you considered the possibility that it's just a typo? It probably should be 2/6/11.
I know you consider at least six impossible things a day if that makes you loved ones look better.

Seriously, nothing in the TUE administration process would surprise me anymore, but I can hardly believe they would input typos in such essential documents of sports medicine. You think Zorzoli's authorization of 30/6/11 is typo as well?
Hey Parker:

You do know that your ...... (hmmmmm) 120/80 .... is causing pre-hypertension across the hall, right?

Oh ... the irony! ;)
Another derogatory post towards someone else. Imagine that.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
samhocking said:
TourOfSardinia said:
All allergy relief is preventative. You shouldn't wait, you take the prevention medication when you are perfectly well to prevent the likely debilitating attack your RAST test confirms is likely to happen and how badly it will happen.
Surely not sam.
Otherwise the entire population would be taking every drug under the sun just in case.
Homeopathic remedies are safe to take in the absence of symptoms
but don't pile up on anything else.
It doesn't work like that for allergies. I agree, for general illness, sure, piling up on preventative medicine (not that there is many anyway) is pointless, because you don't know if, when or what you might be ill from in the future as it's not decided by your own body like allergies, but a RAST tests confirms you will most definitely suffer an allergic reaction when exposed to that particular trigger, be it a type of pollen, spore, or heat or whatever is the trigger and from that result you can then decide what medical treatment is required to prevent that happening. Calculating when to go from maximal therapy via oral treatments to injected ones is pretty simply to equate, it's not difficult. I think Wiggins should attempt to show Hargreaves report, the RASTs and lung function test results for his TUE. He shouldn't do anything for the Jiffy Bag, but the TUEs I think he could go a fair way with the previous medical record he clear has for what he suffers from according to his TUE notes anyway.
Gotta say Sam, a lot of what you're saying today sounds logical and well researched. Allergies are not something I know much about but presuming you're correct on the tests, processes etc then it should be pretty easy for Brad to start to fight back against these accusations.
I mean I don't think it's ever going to be black and white, but if he starts to push some medical history of testing, diagnosis and treatment out into the public domain along the lines of what you suggest will be in place, he might get a few more people onside than he will by just whining about unfair it all is like he did on the BBC interview.
jesus...(holds head in hands)

he really doesn't want any medical info out there...why do you think the laptop was lost, why do you think he's not done it when it would be the obvious thing to do

when froome asks what more he can do we get a single test by swart and a single, old, possibly doctored, fax...again...he really doesn't want too much digging into his back story

paula...shouts for transparancy until it comes to her blood scores

bloomin' 'eck guys, take a step back

nothing in the jiffy bag...so why does:

1. brailsford lie
2. brailsford after being caught out on first lie, lie again
3. brailsford after being caught out on second lie, tries to induce journo not to write story

then
4. lose the laptop
5. the doc is a no show
6. there's no medical records

any one of those is a red flag...to have six....I'm no statistician but......................................
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
The 2012 as you mentioned looks legit, but I can't help thinking there is something odd on the 2011 approved TUE which is the one right after Jiffy Bag.

We know they applied for TUE already 30/5/2011, but we don't know for sure whether it was approved or not. Wiggins says it wasn't, Sutton somewhat gives a feeling it was approved.

The approved TUE for 29/6/11 actually states for RAST test performed on June 2011 for gras pollen, thus it can't be the same (can be updated) application as 30/5/11. Any previous TUE doesn't speak about gras pollen allergy nor RAST, but obviously that doesn't prove he didn't have it. In any case, Wiggo went to RAST AFTER the application on 30/5/11, during busy month of racing and training. This TUE also says: "ENT specialist performed endoscopy nasal airway 2/7/11 confirmed diagnosis allergic nasal rhinits, and that is on maximal topical treatment >3 years". So the ENT specialist diagnosis was done 3 days after the validity and expiration of TUE, and let's remember, on the same day as the satrt of TDF. And not to mention Zorzoli's authorization date is 30/6/11, day after TUE validity.

Is it perfectly normal that TUE is handed over and the information of diagnosis that the TUE is based are updated after the validity date of TUE? Do we all believe Wiggo was on ENT specialist same day as he started TDF?

I get a feeling there was a level of hurry and "panic" within Sky during month June with Wiggo's allergy TUE and conveniently the Jiffy Bag saga is just in the middle of it, but maybe there is a legic explanation to all this. I think we would all like to hear it from the mouth of Freeman and Wiggo.
Have you considered the possibility that it's just a typo? It probably should be 2/6/11.
I know you consider at least six impossible things a day if that makes you loved ones look better.

Seriously, nothing in the TUE administration process would surprise me anymore, but I can hardly believe they would input typos in such essential documents of sports medicine. You think Zorzoli's authorization of 30/6/11 is typo as well?
Hey Parker:

You do know that your ...... (hmmmmm) 120/80 .... is causing pre-hypertension across the hall, right?

Oh ... the irony! ;)
Another derogatory post towards someone else. Imagine that.
Man .... I really gotta buy you a beer ... have a few backslaps .... maybe even a bit of Two Skate ... we'll be good, bro. Seriously .... tranquilo ... I bear zero malice in this. Sarcasm ... verbal jousting ... part of the program.* If you can show me a post that has been truly derogatory, hateful, spiteful ... I'll self-ban myself for a week.

Deal?

EDIT: * Having said all this ... fairly legit olive branch stuff ... be sure of one thing. I am NOT trying to posture that "I am right." I have some modest knowledge, some insights and opinions and will share them, like you. Moreover, I am NOT trying to convince you (not yet) ... to see it my way. What I AM trying to do, however, is Discredit the validity of some of your arguments ... and the arguments of some of your like-minded cohorts. Why? Because I honestly feel that some of the arguments, some of the BS, some of the sentiments are ( along with being ill-informed) dangerous for the future of pro cycling ... far more dangerous than any Sky, Wiggo or Froome purported escapades. (Sam Hocking alluded to this earlier ... "how social media is endangering pro cycling) ... and I couldn't agree with him more).

Why Pro Cycling got seduced into self flaggelation ... I dunno ... or, at least, I haven't taken much time to think about. It now appears, certainly on the Clinic, that anyone that can ride a bike ... sees it fit to overidentify with their role as a fan ... and their 'dress up role' ... as a doctor, MP, Jiffy bag carrier, DS, etc .... while aiming to bring down athletes,wives,teams, sponsors etc. ... and whack off some skin with the whip ... while wielding the "For the Good of the Sport" lie.

Hiding behind BS arguments like ..."better back in the old days", "lacks panache", "donkey to racehorse" .... with (for most posters) scant SCANT real evidence that they have researched (primary) and truly know as fact. Their real reason ... hmmmm .... they don't want to play THAT card, do they? ;)

So, take my messages as you will. I have zero concern on that. :geek:
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
brownbobby said:
samhocking said:
TourOfSardinia said:
All allergy relief is preventative. You shouldn't wait, you take the prevention medication when you are perfectly well to prevent the likely debilitating attack your RAST test confirms is likely to happen and how badly it will happen.
Surely not sam.
Otherwise the entire population would be taking every drug under the sun just in case.
Homeopathic remedies are safe to take in the absence of symptoms
but don't pile up on anything else.
It doesn't work like that for allergies. I agree, for general illness, sure, piling up on preventative medicine (not that there is many anyway) is pointless, because you don't know if, when or what you might be ill from in the future as it's not decided by your own body like allergies, but a RAST tests confirms you will most definitely suffer an allergic reaction when exposed to that particular trigger, be it a type of pollen, spore, or heat or whatever is the trigger and from that result you can then decide what medical treatment is required to prevent that happening. Calculating when to go from maximal therapy via oral treatments to injected ones is pretty simply to equate, it's not difficult. I think Wiggins should attempt to show Hargreaves report, the RASTs and lung function test results for his TUE. He shouldn't do anything for the Jiffy Bag, but the TUEs I think he could go a fair way with the previous medical record he clear has for what he suffers from according to his TUE notes anyway.
Gotta say Sam, a lot of what you're saying today sounds logical and well researched. Allergies are not something I know much about but presuming you're correct on the tests, processes etc then it should be pretty easy for Brad to start to fight back against these accusations.
I mean I don't think it's ever going to be black and white, but if he starts to push some medical history of testing, diagnosis and treatment out into the public domain along the lines of what you suggest will be in place, he might get a few more people onside than he will by just whining about unfair it all is like he did on the BBC interview.
jesus...(holds head in hands)

he really doesn't want any medical info out there...why do you think the laptop was lost, why do you think he's not done it when it would be the obvious thing to do

when froome asks what more he can do we get a single test by swart and a single, old, possibly doctored, fax...again...he really doesn't want too much digging into his back story

paula...shouts for transparancy until it comes to her blood scores

bloomin' 'eck guys, take a step back

nothing in the jiffy bag...so why does:

1. brailsford lie
2. brailsford after being caught out on first lie, lie again
3. brailsford after being caught out on second lie, tries to induce journo not to write story

then
4. lose the laptop
5. the doc is a no show
6. there's no medical records

any one of those is a red flag...to have six....I'm no statistician but......................................
Yeah, perhaps not made clear....but that's kinda my point....with regards to the ethics of the TUE and the application process, if what Sam says is true then the files to back Wiggins claims of innocence should be available...not on a lost laptop, but officially filed and archived with relevant authorities, the ones hacked by the fancy bears.

So, again to clarify my point, why isn't Brad waving these under our noses to give his defence a sort of credibility, instead of the last resort of playing the victim on the BBC interview.

So I guess I'm saying the same as you in a different way.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
bambino said:
Sky hasn't gave a jack ****. Just contradicting words. Media doesn't need to provide evidence. They question by nature. And if one provide sloppy answers they'll question more. That's how the cookie crumbles.
No the media should write stories with facts from sources. Not say I'm suspicious of you, now tell me why.
Well... i.e. the Whistleblower is a Source. He/She is confirmed to be a physical person. Of course it is that persons word against Sky's word. You like it or not, media has all the right Sources to be suspicious until the other party proves their Source is wrong. And they haven't even tried. In the mean time they even fail to tell concistently when and how many TUE's where granted at the time, or was there treatment in the back of the bus or not - not saying those has any actual matter, but they should at least try to look convincing, right? All the information is there, just show it!
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Sky hasn't gave a jack ****. Just contradicting words. Media doesn't need to provide evidence. They question by nature. And if one provide sloppy answers they'll question more. That's how the cookie crumbles.
No the media should write stories with facts from sources. Not say I'm suspicious of you, now tell me why.
Well... i.e. the Whistleblower is a Source. He/She is confirmed to be a physical person. Of course it is that persons word against Sky's word. You like it or not, media has all the right Sources to be suspicious until the other party proves their Source is wrong. And they haven't even tried. In the mean time they even fail to tell concistently when and how many TUE's where granted at the time, or was there treatment in the back of the bus or not - not saying those has any actual matter, but they should at least try to look convincing, right? All the information is there, just show it!
So ... what's your endgame, Bambino? The short one and long one. Thanks, in advance.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Sky hasn't gave a jack ****. Just contradicting words. Media doesn't need to provide evidence. They question by nature. And if one provide sloppy answers they'll question more. That's how the cookie crumbles.
No the media should write stories with facts from sources. Not say I'm suspicious of you, now tell me why.
Well... i.e. the Whistleblower is a Source. He/She is confirmed to be a physical person. Of course it is that persons word against Sky's word. You like it or not, media has all the right Sources to be suspicious until the other party proves their Source is wrong. And they haven't even tried. In the mean time they even fail to tell concistently when and how many TUE's where granted at the time, or was there treatment in the back of the bus or not - not saying those has any actual matter, but they should at least try to look convincing, right? All the information is there, just show it!
So ... what's your endgame, Bambino? The short one and long one. Thanks, in advance.
There is no endgame, Alpe. I'm not even trying to say I know what is going on. I'm just wondering why Sky isn't coming to public with documented evidence if there isn't anything to hide? There seem to be few others like Brownbobby and Sam thinking the same way.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Alpe73 said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Sky hasn't gave a jack ****. Just contradicting words. Media doesn't need to provide evidence. They question by nature. And if one provide sloppy answers they'll question more. That's how the cookie crumbles.
No the media should write stories with facts from sources. Not say I'm suspicious of you, now tell me why.
Well... i.e. the Whistleblower is a Source. He/She is confirmed to be a physical person. Of course it is that persons word against Sky's word. You like it or not, media has all the right Sources to be suspicious until the other party proves their Source is wrong. And they haven't even tried. In the mean time they even fail to tell concistently when and how many TUE's where granted at the time, or was there treatment in the back of the bus or not - not saying those has any actual matter, but they should at least try to look convincing, right? All the information is there, just show it!
So ... what's your endgame, Bambino? The short one and long one. Thanks, in advance.
There is no endgame, Alpe. I'm not even trying to say I know what is going on. I'm just wondering why Sky isn't coming to public with documented evidence if there isn't anything to hide? There seem to be few others like Brownbobby and Sam thinking the same way.
Tis fair enough to wonder about these things. But just because you wonder or I wonder ... just because you and I don't really know the facts (Can we be honest? We don' know!) ... does NOT, necessarily, mean that they are hiding a mass ... even a small drug ring.

There are reasons why people stay quiet about things. Sometimes it's because they DO have something to hide. Sometimes they choose to remain silent ... and they really DO NOT have anything significant to hide. Often, lawyers (most of the time they offer a great, essential service) advise clients to remain silent ... especially in an environment where mass media has a hard job selling truth. Silence does NOT imply guilt. It may make people suspicious of you ... but that's their doing ... not yours.

As for Sam and Brown Bobby ... two of the finest. I have have my own opinions ... but it seems we have somewhat similar views on some items ... no more or no less. I don't speak for them.

That their/my views are not widely shared on here ... is not an accurate measure of the sentiments outside of the Clinic. Seems to be a lot more sun outside.

For me ... if Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, SKY ... are somehow sanctioned/reprimanded for violating pro cyling rules ... I will be totally fine with that ... unless I feel that the sanction is wildly severe ... but I don't think that will happen.

Straight up question to you. If the relevant authorities order no sanction or a lite sanction ... will you accept that? Will you emotionally let go of this issue at that point?

My 2 cents worth. Peace. :)
 
Of course I will. What would make you think I wouldn't? It seems though to me that you are not willing to accept any decision? I think you should, without reservations you just implemented.

I'm accepting any resolution, because those decisions are made by people (I hope) that are more capable and professionally more savvy than any of us to draw a conclusion in these matters. It doesn't though remove my right to provide opinions in this forum for matters that doesn't stack up to me. Whether those opinions are right or wrong. Same applies to you of course Alpe.

All the best.
 
Re:

:)
bambino said:
Of course I will. What would make you think I wouldn't? It seems though to me that you are not willing to accept any decision? I think you should, without reservations you just implemented.

I'm accepting any resolution, because those decisions are made by people (I hope) that are more capable and professionally more savvy than any of us to draw a conclusion in these matters. It doesn't though remove my right to provide opinions in this forum for matters that doesn't stack up to me. Whether those opinions are right or wrong. Same applies to you of course Alpe.

All the best.
I will be totally fine with that ... without reservation ... I promise. :)
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
Parker said:
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
What rubs me wrong in Parker's post is that he tries to paint Triamcinolone as a perfectly reasonable treatment for asthma/allergies and people who disagree has not having the athlete best interests in mind.
The Lotto doctor seemed to think it was reasonable treatment when he offered it to Wellens during last year's Tour.
Was it triamcinolone or another form of corticosteroid? What was Wellens exact condition? It wasn't pollen allergies but something to do with the heat. Lotto is a pretty old school team, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would do that, it's wrong, and Wellens knew better than to take it, kudos to him.

So about the OOC use?
It was heat allergies, similar allergic reaction issue as Wiggins, just triggered by heat not pollen. The treatment Wellens doctor wanted to give him would have been for triamcinolone via intra-muscular using a TUE, same as Wiggins and why Wellens refused it, because he didn't want to be seen as a cheat in the eye of the public, even though nobody would have known unless Fancy bears do another hack lol. That's a pretty sad situation with TUE suspicion is so high, even legitimate use is considered cheating. Obviously we would have had just as little proof his heat allergy was not faked though, even if leaked, so he was probably correct to pull out I guess.
I cannot find anwhere that says what Wellens was offered. In fact all I can find is "the team would not speificy what drug had been offered to Wellens..." so where are you getting that he was offered this?

You then go on to use this case as evidence that Triamcinolone is widely used to treat allergies in the peloton. Its disingenuous at best.

Yes allergies should be able to be treated with preventative measures - but that is why they have a thresh hold on some drugs - because it is considered that those drugs are acceptable (with limits) for preventative use. Otherwise there are many allergy drugs that are not banned. That does not mean that you can apply for a TUE to use an otherwise banned drug for prevantative purposes.

TUE's are for permission to use an otherwise banned drug to treat something that already exists - to essentially bring you back to where you would otherwise have been. Using a very powerful drug known to be performance enhancing for 'preventative' purpose is most definitely going to be performance enhancing ... and is against the rules.

Applying for one when/if he is not currently suffering those symptoms involves stating on the application falsehoods ... and that is presumably what the UCI is asking the CADF to now investigate.
 
Re: Re:

AussieGoddess said:
I cannot find anwhere that says what Wellens was offered. In fact all I can find is "the team would not speificy what drug had been offered to Wellens..." so where are you getting that he was offered this?

You then go on to use this case as evidence that Triamcinolone is widely used to treat allergies in the peloton. Its disingenuous at best.

Yes allergies should be able to be treated with preventative measures - but that is why they have a thresh hold on some drugs - because it is considered that those drugs are acceptable (with limits) for preventative use. Otherwise there are many allergy drugs that are not banned. That does not mean that you can apply for a TUE to use an otherwise banned drug for prevantative purposes.

TUE's are for permission to use an otherwise banned drug to treat something that already exists - to essentially bring you back to where you would otherwise have been. Using a very powerful drug known to be performance enhancing for 'preventative' purpose is most definitely going to be performance enhancing ... and is against the rules.

Applying for one when/if he is not currently suffering those symptoms involves stating on the application falsehoods ... and that is presumably what the UCI is asking the CADF to now investigate.
Why do you think prophylactic treatment is against the rules? Could you highlight the section of the regulations that states this? The quote below from the regulations seems to indicate that it's fine.

4. Conditions for granting TUE

Article 4.1- UCI Regulations for TUE

A rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met:

a. The prohibited substance or prohibited method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld.
 
CADF & LADS investigating his 3 TUEs, is that old news or new news? I've not heard it mentioned before that's all. That would probably explain why Wiggins doesn't feel compelled to use those missing attachments to his TUEs to try and justify them himself, it they've already been investigated perhaps?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
CADF & LADS investigating his 3 TUEs, is that old news or new news? I've not heard it mentioned before that's all. That would probably explain why Wiggins doesn't feel compelled to use those missing attachments to his TUEs to try and justify them himself, it they've already been investigated perhaps?
I don't think so Sam, I think at this stage public opinion is equally, if not more important to Wiggins than any formal ruling.
 
Sorry I didn't explain very well, that's not what I meant. I meant is this investigation new (just happened) alongiside UKAD & Committee and why he hasn't tried to justify his TUEs because they were also being investigated by CADF/LADS? i.e. was told to not speak the same as the other investigation supposedly told him to not also,
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Sorry I didn't explain very well, that's not what I meant. I meant is this investigation new (just happened) alongiside UKAD & Committee and why he hasn't tried to justify his TUEs because they were also being investigated by CADF/LADS? i.e. was told to not speak the same as the other investigation supposedly told him to not also,
Why would CADF/LADS even have to talk to him? All they have to do is carry out a simple audit: were the correct procedures followed, all the right boxes ticked. He doesn't even have to know they've done it. It's an internal audit.
 
I'm not arguing against anything, I simply don't know what the situation is/was with CADF/LADS and his TUEs. You say it's an audit, lequipe seem to suggest it was an investigation or Peter Cossis tweet claims it was investigated? I would expect all TUE';s to be reviewed/audited by CADF and/or WADA TUEC at some point.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Sorry I didn't explain very well, that's not what I meant. I meant is this investigation new (just happened) alongiside UKAD & Committee and why he hasn't tried to justify his TUEs because they were also being investigated by CADF/LADS? i.e. was told to not speak the same as the other investigation supposedly told him to not also,
The CADF review any AAF, as they are the ones who can relate the sample to the rider, and pass on possible ADRVs to LADs. they also administer the TUE system for the UCI. As such I believe that they would have had site of both Wiggin's TUEs with the required documentation, signed off by the UCI committee. As far as they are concerned the TUE is legitimate and only new information (such as a doctor lying on the forms) would cause them to be re-reviewed. I'm pretty sure that's what L'equipe is referring to.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
I'm not arguing against anything, I simply don't know what the situation is/was with CADF/LADS and his TUEs. You say it's an audit, lequipe seem to suggest it was an investigation or Peter Cossis tweet claims it was investigated? I would expect all TUE';s to be reviewed/audited by CADF and/or WADA TUEC at some point.
Audit and investigate can mean the same goddamned thing. Especially when you're talking about garbled translations that you haven't even seen the original of. Seriously Sam, why do you have to try and make everything so *** difficult? These things aren't hard.

Let's do this easy for you. You bragged about being a company director recently. If Revenue audit/look at/investigate/call-it-what-the-bloody-hell-you-want your file and find nothing there, you're not going to know. You'll only know if they decide to take the matter further.

Is that simple enough for you or can you find a way of complicating even that?
 
Re: Re:

wansteadimp said:
Parker said:
yaco said:
It's a fact that many athletes, especially those in contact sports live on pain killing injections - It's not unknown for athletes to have 10 or 15 pain-killing injections to get up for next weeks match.
Two a day for a year: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/john-terry-reveals-he-went-through-a-year-of-daily-painkiller-injections-to-play-for-jose-mourinhos-a3554976.html

Andrew Flintoff said last year that he had 90 cortisone shots in his career. One paper back then dubbed him the 'Cortisone King': http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/cortisone-king-flintoff-ready-for-test-487353.html
Flintoff had 90 injections, are we sure about the weight loss properties of cortisone??
Lol
 
I wasn't aware this was already such uncomplicated common knowledge fmk. First i've ever heard any discussion that CADF/LADS have previously looked into his TUEs until the Lappartient thread a couple of hours ago. Sorry I spoke lol! I'm off to audit what the wife wants for dinner tonight.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
AussieGoddess said:
I cannot find anwhere that says what Wellens was offered. In fact all I can find is "the team would not speificy what drug had been offered to Wellens..." so where are you getting that he was offered this?

You then go on to use this case as evidence that Triamcinolone is widely used to treat allergies in the peloton. Its disingenuous at best.

Yes allergies should be able to be treated with preventative measures - but that is why they have a thresh hold on some drugs - because it is considered that those drugs are acceptable (with limits) for preventative use. Otherwise there are many allergy drugs that are not banned. That does not mean that you can apply for a TUE to use an otherwise banned drug for prevantative purposes.

TUE's are for permission to use an otherwise banned drug to treat something that already exists - to essentially bring you back to where you would otherwise have been. Using a very powerful drug known to be performance enhancing for 'preventative' purpose is most definitely going to be performance enhancing ... and is against the rules.

Applying for one when/if he is not currently suffering those symptoms involves stating on the application falsehoods ... and that is presumably what the UCI is asking the CADF to now investigate.
Why do you think prophylactic treatment is against the rules? Could you highlight the section of the regulations that states this? The quote below from the regulations seems to indicate that it's fine.

4. Conditions for granting TUE

Article 4.1- UCI Regulations for TUE

A rider may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met:

a. The prohibited substance or prohibited method in question is needed to treat an acute or chronic medical condition, such that the Rider would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld.
My understanding of that rule has always been an emphasis on "significant impairment to health" such as medicines required for surgery, or to treat anaphylactic shock or something of similar level needing emergent care. Allergies really isn't a "significant impairment to health". You might feel lousy, but... Same with having a cold. It doesn't mean you get to take remedies with pseudo-ephedrine in them. It means you feel lousy and take a few days off from riding/racing.

John Swanson
 
I can't believe we're even having a debate about whether his use of triamcinolone was legitimate:

There's no evidence that any allergy issues weren't already under control going into the 2012 Tour, given that he won three major stage races in a row and even won a bunch sprint in Romandie.

The timing of the TUEs is damning, coinciding not with a consistent pollen season, but with season goals in grand tours. Why did he need a TUE at the 2013 Giro having not needed one at that time of year previously? It's the same pattern as Sharapova and meldonium: bigger doses before more important matches.

Former riders like Rasmussen and Millar have confirmed that the reason cyclists take triamcinolone is for performance enhancement and that its effects are anything but marginal.

David Millar:
“You would do all the training but my weight would stick,” he said. “But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off I would feel stronger.

“If you are non-asthmatic and you take Ventolin it’s not going to give you any advantage. But if you take Kenacort it’s not only going to make a sick person better, it’s going to make a sick person better than a healthy person. That’s a very grey area.

-https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/19/drugs-used-by-sir-bradley-wiggins-should-be-banned-says-david-mi/
Michael Rasmussen:
“You can have 50mg of triamcinolone injected into your knee joint, and that will release very slowly for the next four to five weeks. That gives you a free pass to use it intramuscularly for the next four to five weeks afterwards in much lower doses, which is what you’d usually use. In terms of its performance-enhancing effects, it’s a wonder drug.”

- https://cyclingtips.com/2017/04/interview-michael-rasmussen-talks-tues-marginal-gains-outer-edge-potential/
Injected triamcinolone is not a standard allergy treatment due to its serious side-effects. For example my sister suffers from allergies and asthma described by her doctor as "19 out of 20" in severity but manages them with a combination of inhaled steroids and beta2 agonists, steroid nasal sprays, and first-generation antihistamines (which are stronger but have more side effects than second-generation), and then oral steroids if she has a chest infection. Injections have never been discussed as an option.

"I don’t recommend steroid injections such as triamcinolone (Kenalog) at all for seasonal allergies. They certainly are effective, but the absorption is unpredictable.

"The potential side effects are serious, and there is no way to get rid of the injected steroid if side effects occur. Serious side effects include elevations in blood pressure and blood sugar (occasionally converting borderline high blood sugars to overt diabetes), loss of bone strength and mental status changes, including acute psychosis.

"You report good side effects, but you might be having significant side effects without knowing it.

"A good response to systemic steroids, whether by injection or by oral steroids such as prednisone, predicts a good response to topical nasal steroids, which have far fewer side effects."

- http://www.timescolonist.com/life/health/your-good-health-steroid-shots-not-advised-for-allergy-1.1955306
Finally this debate is happening not in a vacuum, but in the context of decades of lies and dirty sport, and we should be as sceptical of riders and cycling doctors claiming powerful drugs with known performance-enhancing effects are needed to treat conditions as we are of junkies claiming powerful painkillers are needed when they pull a muscle or stub their toe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS