• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
16,254
0
0
pastronef said:
El Pistolero said:
pastronef said:
March 2009 piece, among other athletes with Asthma, Bradley Wiggins

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1160225/Breathe-easy--control-asthma.html
Yeah, this proves Bradley is oh so clean. :rolleyes:
Bradley is not clean. but interesting the Daily Mail names his asthma in a March 2009 piece, even before he was 4th at the Tour
Someone can be asthmatic and still be a cheater. Besides, isn't the argument that the medication he used was over-kill and there were better, less drastic solutions for his ailments? Yet he decided to take Triamcinolon... which might I add has no effect if the asthma attack has already started.
 
samhocking said:
I tend to agree with Parker. In road racing performed outdoors over 3 weeks, with calorific output the same as running 20-odd marathons back-to-back every day, athletes will simply not survive without medical support. While we may applaud riders like Tim Wellens refusing his doctor trying to inject him with Triamcinolone with a TUE to cure his allergies suffered in the race and pulling out instead, if every rider refused medical support throughout the race this way, half the peloton would not exist, sponsors not be happy, riders unhappy they can't race and you would have perhaps a few dozen stragglers for GC in Paris and time gaps so huge there would be no actual GC race whatsoever after two weeks, letalone 3. It would be more like the days of Henri Desgrange where upto 3/4 of the starters never even make it to Paris due to poor health, crashes and injury left untreated without medical support allowed or even considered then and the time gaps from 1st to2nd place over 2 hours lol! As much as we want bread and water racing, it's not possible. Perhaps one day a team will launch that doesn't include any doctors on its staff lol, but they are there for a reason and thats to keep riders healthy in what is a very unhealthy activity without it as seen in non-medical support days of Henri Desgrange etc.

The problem with the TUE system for Corticosteroids especially, is we all know riders like Millar, Jascch, Rasmussen and everyone back then would get their doctor to fake they had a joint or tendon injury, because an Intra-Articular injection of Triamcinolone to fix it, would normally be granted under TUE easily back then. Once granted by UCI, then their team doctor would simply inject the rider intra-muscularly in the bum, not their fake knee or ankle injury and so the rider got the performance benefit of the Triamcinolone and the TUE protection because you can't easily detect route of administration of it. That was abuse of the TUE system, that was using fake injury to apply for TUEs under the premise you will be using an intra-articular injection to treat it and that wouldn't have such performance benefits, but injecting intra-muscularly once granted, knowing you couldn't get caught if tested from the intra-articular you were meant to have.

Wiggins TUE application was at the opposite end. He wasn't using the easy traditional fake injury to hide under an intra-articular TUE, his TUE was for intra-muscular from the beginning, no pretence. Knowing, his TUE would probably never be known about, why go to all that bother with the asthma documentation and trying to get a TUE for an unlikely intra-muscular injection if you don't really need to apply for with such complexity? As we saw with Wellens, clearly team doctors are treating riders for illness and injury in races with it still and I would expect them to be I think, because a rider invested all that time in training and shouldn't have to pull out, just because riders like Millar, Jascch, Rasmussen abused the system by faking what they are actually suffering from legitimately and not trying to abuse the system, but now in fear of us the fans based on the misdemeanours of their previous generation.
Arguably ... one of the best posts ever on CN.
 
Aug 3, 2010
633
0
0
Alpe73 said:
samhocking said:
I tend to agree with Parker. In road racing performed outdoors over 3 weeks, with calorific output the same as running 20-odd marathons back-to-back every day, athletes will simply not survive without medical support. While we may applaud riders like Tim Wellens refusing his doctor trying to inject him with Triamcinolone with a TUE to cure his allergies suffered in the race and pulling out instead, if every rider refused medical support throughout the race this way, half the peloton would not exist, sponsors not be happy, riders unhappy they can't race and you would have perhaps a few dozen stragglers for GC in Paris and time gaps so huge there would be no actual GC race whatsoever after two weeks, letalone 3. It would be more like the days of Henri Desgrange where upto 3/4 of the starters never even make it to Paris due to poor health, crashes and injury left untreated without medical support allowed or even considered then and the time gaps from 1st to2nd place over 2 hours lol! As much as we want bread and water racing, it's not possible. Perhaps one day a team will launch that doesn't include any doctors on its staff lol, but they are there for a reason and thats to keep riders healthy in what is a very unhealthy activity without it as seen in non-medical support days of Henri Desgrange etc.

The problem with the TUE system for Corticosteroids especially, is we all know riders like Millar, Jascch, Rasmussen and everyone back then would get their doctor to fake they had a joint or tendon injury, because an Intra-Articular injection of Triamcinolone to fix it, would normally be granted under TUE easily back then. Once granted by UCI, then their team doctor would simply inject the rider intra-muscularly in the bum, not their fake knee or ankle injury and so the rider got the performance benefit of the Triamcinolone and the TUE protection because you can't easily detect route of administration of it. That was abuse of the TUE system, that was using fake injury to apply for TUEs under the premise you will be using an intra-articular injection to treat it and that wouldn't have such performance benefits, but injecting intra-muscularly once granted, knowing you couldn't get caught if tested from the intra-articular you were meant to have.

Wiggins TUE application was at the opposite end. He wasn't using the easy traditional fake injury to hide under an intra-articular TUE, his TUE was for intra-muscular from the beginning, no pretence. Knowing, his TUE would probably never be known about, why go to all that bother with the asthma documentation and trying to get a TUE for an unlikely intra-muscular injection if you don't really need to apply for with such complexity? As we saw with Wellens, clearly team doctors are treating riders for illness and injury in races with it still and I would expect them to be I think, because a rider invested all that time in training and shouldn't have to pull out, just because riders like Millar, Jascch, Rasmussen abused the system by faking what they are actually suffering from legitimately and not trying to abuse the system, but now in fear of us the fans based on the misdemeanours of their previous generation.
Arguably ... one of the best posts ever on CN.
As ridiculous as the post was, at least your giving someone other than yourself credit for being correct.
 
Re: Re:

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! ;)
 
Aug 3, 2010
633
0
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. :)
 
Oct 5, 2010
1,018
0
0
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?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS