Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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
1,733
2
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
 
Jan 15, 2013
863
0
0
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.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
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.
I don't think this is the case at all. KB is correct when he says that CADF routinely checks AAFs for TUEs, and presumably in the process make sure the documentation is in order, but that’s quite a bit different from investigating whether the TUE was used for PE. There’s no way they could do this simply by checking the documentation. So when someone calls for an investigation, it’s not correct to dismiss this by saying, it’s already been done. I’m not sure what an investigation would accomplish at this point, barring as KB says new information emerging, but it would be an exercise that hadn’t yet been performed.

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?
Let's do this easy for you. You posted a link to one of your articles on EPO recently. If someone opens the link and confirms that the story is there, you're not going to know. You'll only know if someone decides to criticize what you actually said about EPO in the article. That's quite a bit different from just opening the link.

vedrafjord said:
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.
Yes, but Wiggins’ argument is based on probability. Had his allergy flared up at any point during any of those races, he maintains, he would have lost. The problem is we have no way of assessing how likely this was, and even if we could, there’s no rule to help us. I think we could all agree that if there was > 50% chance, we could understand why he would want to take the drug. But what if the chance were 10-20%. What if it were 1%? Where do you draw the line?

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.
Yes, the 2013 Giro is suspicious. So, for that matter, are previous Tours, like 2009. Assuming FB was thorough, he had no TUE for triamcinolone then, only salbutamol, formeterol, another beta2-agonist, and budesonide, a corticosteroid, all taken by inhalation.

Great quote from DB:

Listen, anybody over the age of 35 or 30 years old in professional cycling is a concern. End of. End of.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Let's do this easy for you. You posted a link to one of your articles on EPO recently. If someone opens the link and confirms that the story is there, you're not going to know. You'll only know if someone decides to criticize what you actually said about EPO in the article. That's quite a bit different from just opening the link.
Maybe you could share your prescription with me, because there's no way I'm going to be able to follow that without it. And, for the record, the question could be asked would I care to know? The answer is no. (Oh, and BTW, if I did want to know, I could look at the web stats, the traffic of the article and the traffic to the article from the link posted.)
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

vedrafjord said:
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.
On the timing of Wiggo's TUEs compared to the pollen season, did you know that Freeman also wanted to apply for a TUE ahead of the September 2013 Tour of Britain?

Dr Freeman's plan was blocked by Sky colleague Dr Farrell changing Team Sky's password for the ADAMs system and refusing to tell Freeman the new password. You really couldn't make this stuff up :lol:

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/sky-doctor-prevented-richard-freeman-applying-fourth-bradley-wiggins-tue-318094
 
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.

Wiggins won ToB that week, then a week later silver in Worlds, so whatever it was, probably wasn't that significant to his base level form at that time anyway?
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

samhocking said:
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.
Trouble is it's now gone well beyond the point where any objective observer (which excludes pretty much everyone on this forum, I'll admit :razz: ) would give Wiggo and Team Sky the benefit of the doubt

And in any case it's worth noting that, even if we create a fictional parallel reality in which Freeman is requesting TUEs for Wiggo just to bring him back to normal health and not for performance enhancement, Wiggo won that 2013 ToB - despite being prevented from taking a medicine which might have returned him to full health.

As fictional parallel realities go, that's remarkable. Because I suspect everyone on this forum rides a bike. And so we all know what it feels like to try to ride hard when you're ill (although perhaps not for 5hrs a day for 5 days). But if anyone's not sure, there's an excellent chapter in Nicole Cooke's book on the subject
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

samhocking said:
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.
Sam has stopped posting...

...we should pity his poor wife :lol:
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.

Wiggins won ToB that week, then a week later silver in Worlds, so whatever it was, probably wasn't that significant to his base level form at that time anyway?
Sam

you're finally beginning to see... ;)

The TUEs and Froome's positive coincide with good, no, great form.........

you and SKY can cite illness however on the ground they are flying

How do you know when SKY riders are ill? They're winning really tough races
 
Mar 7, 2017
553
0
0
Re:

samhocking said:
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.

Wiggins won ToB that week, then a week later silver in Worlds, so whatever it was, probably wasn't that significant to his base level form at that time anyway?
Oh hang on Sam's edited his original post

So his wife can probably cook the tea in peace

Which is a blessing

It's international women's day after all
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.

Wiggins won ToB that week, then a week later silver in Worlds, so whatever it was, probably wasn't that significant to his base level form at that time anyway?
Sam

you're finally beginning to see... ;)

The TUEs and Froome's positive coincide with good, no, great form.........

you and SKY can cite illness however on the ground they are flying

How do you know when SKY riders are ill? They're winning really tough races
Perhaps, but the then Giro TUE kind of says the opposite happened?
You're not ill when you have asthma by the way. No asthma or allergy sufferer would every say they are ill. They will say they're having an attack when having an attack, puff on their inhaler and say they fine again. Technically it's a disease, i.e. has a pathological cause and defined biologically. Illness is simply whatever your own subjective opinion is of how you feel or what you are suffering from at the time.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Unless you know what substance the 4th TUE was for, difficult to relate to the earlier Triamcinolone one. Could simply be his asthma needed controlling, injury, who knows.

Wiggins won ToB that week, then a week later silver in Worlds, so whatever it was, probably wasn't that significant to his base level form at that time anyway?
Sam

you're finally beginning to see... ;)

The TUEs and Froome's positive coincide with good, no, great form.........

you and SKY can cite illness however on the ground they are flying

How do you know when SKY riders are ill? They're winning really tough races
Perhaps, but the then Giro TUE kind of says the opposite happened? You're not ill when you have asthma by the way. No asthma sufferer would every say they are ill. They will say they're having an attack when having an attack, pugg on their inahler and say they fine again. Not ill or not ill.
He was being a mardy git throughout the first part of 2013 and never seemed happy with being relegated to the Giro while Froome got a shot at the Tour. In the Giro, his form was there, his mind was not, and several crashes ended our misery early, thankfully.
 
I posted a few months ago that I'd watch Lappartient's performance with interest - I am disappointed in Lappartient's public posturings in the last 24 hours - For a start the UCI's had 18+ months to investigate Wiggin's TUE's and he's been in power for the last six months - And if he wants CADF to investigate Sky, surely this should be confidential - He's displaying little knowledge of how Anti-Doping should play out.
 
Re:

yaco said:
I posted a few months ago that I'd watch Lappartient's performance with interest - I am disappointed in Lappartient's public posturings in the last 24 hours - For a start the UCI's had 18+ months to investigate Wiggin's TUE's and he's been in power for the last six months - And if he wants CADF to investigate Sky, surely this should be confidential - He's displaying little knowledge of how Anti-Doping should play out.
Indeed....and of course there'll be few who acknowledge anything Froome says on here, but IF he was right in what he said earlier, i.e. that Lapartient hadn't bothered to make any official contact with Sky/Froome to discuss how he thinks they should be handling the AAF, but instead chooses to posture with sound bites for the media......then Froome is right, this isn't how he should be using his authority.

So yes, plenty of political posturing for effect, playing up to the ebbs and flows of public opinion, but few signs of real leadership. Another politician masquerading as a leader?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
this isn't how he should be using his authority.
What authority? Seriously, no joking here, but what authority? He's head of the UCI, that's all. McQuaid needed the Disciplinary Commission and the Licence Commission to try and do his dirty work on Boonen and Katusha. Cookson fell back on the Licence Commission when he wanted a fight with Astana. The people with 'power' in the Froome case are CADF, LADS, the Disciplinary Commission. All Lappartient has is PR.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
this isn't how he should be using his authority.
What authority? Seriously, no joking here, but what authority? He's head of the UCI, that's all. McQuaid needed the Disciplinary Commission and the Licence Commission to try and do his dirty work on Boonen and Katusha. Cookson fell back on the Licence Commission when he wanted a fight with Astana. The people with 'power' in the Froome case are CADF, LADS, the Disciplinary Commission. All Lappartient has is PR.
The question is how effectively Lappartient is performing PR ? IMO the whole Froome case is becoming a circus and is unedifying for cycling - I expect better from the head of the UCI .
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
this isn't how he should be using his authority.
What authority? Seriously, no joking here, but what authority? He's head of the UCI, that's all. McQuaid needed the Disciplinary Commission and the Licence Commission to try and do his dirty work on Boonen and Katusha. Cookson fell back on the Licence Commission when he wanted a fight with Astana. The people with 'power' in the Froome case are CADF, LADS, the Disciplinary Commission. All Lappartient has is PR.
Authority isn't just about power and force.

Good leaders can be authoritative and influential without always relying on force.

He has the authority to make representation to Team Sky/Froome on behalf of the UCI, if he believes the sport is being damaged.

Of course, I'm not saying he has the 'power' to force anyone to do or act in a way that's any more than rule compliant, but I agree with Froome 100% here, he should be making personal representation direct to the parties involved, rather than just posturing for the media.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
He has the authority to make representation to Team Sky/Froome on behalf of the UCI, if he believes the sport is being damaged.

Of course, I'm not saying he has the 'power' to force anyone to do or act in a way that's any more than rule compliant, but I agree with Froome 100% here, he should be making personal representation direct to the parties involved, rather than just posturing for the media.
We don't know what communication there has been between the UCI, Sky, and Froome. We have one response from Froome to one question about one interview:
"Given his concern for the reputation of the sport, I think it would be more sensible of him to raise his concerns in person or at least though the right channels as opposed to through the media.

“I’m obviously doing everything I can to get this resolved as quickly as possible, and just trying to keep my head down.”

Asked if he felt this was a case of political posturing on Lappartient’s part, Froome simply responded: “You’d have to ask him that.”
In this, Froome is following the argument that the media circus around this is damaging, rather than the case itself. Basically telling the media to STFU. Maybe there's a point there, but there's also a point that Lappartient will be criticised if he publicly says nothing. Consider eg the complaints during the long silence of the Danielson case.

(Note: if you believe that discussing the case publicly, instead of only through private correspondence with team and rider, is damaging and are offended by this damage then - if you practice what you preach - you can't comment here, you can't stoke the debate in any way, even to try and counter it.)

Lappartient, this latest interview, it's not much different from what we've been hearing from him since elected: people ask him questions and - unlike eg Cookson - he doesn't bat them away, he engages with them. No surprises in it, then. So. I guess my real question is, knowing the reality of his powerlessness - knowing that it's up to CADF, LADS, the Disclipinary Commission to decide if rules have been broken - what do we actually expect Lappartient to do? Froome doesn't seem to want to bench himself, the Rasmussen case demonstrates the possible financial consequence of the team benching him. Do we want Lappartient - the UCI - to underwrite the financial risk here? What do we want him to do, expect him to do?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
He has the authority to make representation to Team Sky/Froome on behalf of the UCI, if he believes the sport is being damaged.

Of course, I'm not saying he has the 'power' to force anyone to do or act in a way that's any more than rule compliant, but I agree with Froome 100% here, he should be making personal representation direct to the parties involved, rather than just posturing for the media.
We don't know what communication there has been between the UCI, Sky, and Froome. We have one response from Froome to one question about one interview:
"Given his concern for the reputation of the sport, I think it would be more sensible of him to raise his concerns in person or at least though the right channels as opposed to through the media.

“I’m obviously doing everything I can to get this resolved as quickly as possible, and just trying to keep my head down.”

Asked if he felt this was a case of political posturing on Lappartient’s part, Froome simply responded: “You’d have to ask him that.”
In this, Froome is following the argument that the media circus around this is damaging, rather than the case itself. Basically telling the media to STFU. Maybe there's a point there, but there's also a point that Lappartient will be criticised if he publicly says nothing. Consider eg the complaints during the long silence of the Danielson case.

(Note: if you believe that discussing the case publicly, instead of only through private correspondence with team and rider, us damaging and are offendedby this damage then - if you practice what you preach - you can't comment here, you can't stoke the debate in any way, even to try and counter it.)

Lappartient, this latest interview, it's not much different from what we've been hearing from him since elected: people ask him questions and - unlike eg Cookson - he doesn't bat them away, he engages with them. No surprises in it, then. So. I guess my real question is, knowing the reality of his powerlessness - knowing that it's up to CADF, LADS, the Disclipinary Commission to decide if rules have been broken - what do we actually expect Lappartient to do? Froome doesn't seem to want to bench himself, the Rasmussen case demonstrates the possible financial consequence of the team benching him. Do we want Lappartient - the UCI - to underwrite the financial risk here? What do we want him to do, expect him to do?
Wait...you're equating me passing a bit of time by debating the Froome case on a fringe Internet forum with the head of the UCI debating same with international sports media :confused:

I'm sure you can craft a justification for that if pushed.....but I've seen where this road leads with you so back to the more specific debate....

What would I want....Perhaps Lapartient could speak to Sky then tell us that he's spoken to Sky, made his feelings and hopes for the sport clear, left them in no uncertain terms what he would like to see happen. Then perhaps tell us that Sky told him to *** off. I reckon that would please and agitate some people in equal measure. I think he'd at least earn some respect for that. He'd still be shown up for his powerlessness, but maybe his authority, his future influence, would grow on the wave of public opinion that he's currently trying to ride with minimum effort.

Of course had he done all of this, we'd still be in exactly the same position as we are now. But you asked what we want. Can't speak for we, but I would have a little more respect for this than I would for the easy route of sound bites for the media.

You're right there's no hard statements that he has or hasn't spoken to Sky, and again you could be right that Froome is referring to one specific question when he says there's been no approach through the official channels. Or he might not have ever spoken to Froome since this whole thing broke. Your guess is as good as mine.

I dunno really, just musing, I'd hate to be a politician
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts