Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[jarvo]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

The parliamentary report stated that no anti doping violations have taken place but sky have 'crossed an ethical boundary' Team Sky are a privately funded team, why do the government feel it necessary to stick their nose in?

Professional sport is result orientated, there are rules in place, if no rule has been broken, why does it matter? professional teams will always go as far as they can up to the line, this happens in all sports. If a footballer dives in the penalty area to get a penalty, that is crossing an ethical line, but there isn't this fervour to brandish them a cheat to this extent.

If I am not mistaken, TUE's have to be granted by a panel of experts after the medical facts are presented to them? if that panel have the wool pulled over there eyes and grant a TUE, then surely that is where the spotlight should be? the team have only done what they can to tip the balance in their favour, at the end of then day a board of medical professionals were presented with evidence and signed off on the TUE's why then is Bradley Wiggins being branded a cheat? Why is the board that grant the TUE's not been held accountable? And surely if their medical expertise resulted in the granting of the TUE's, how is this now such a big issue? surely some kind of medical need had to be established? and if it cannot be established then the TUE system needs a massive overhaul and that should be the story, not a team working within the system that was in front of them

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

Caffeine is a limited drug during competition as well, but if riders choose to use inflated levels and drink 30 espressos before training that is surely no different?

I am just so confused why everyone is piling on as if Bradley Wiggins and Sky are the same as Lance and USPS, they systematically were using EPO and blood bags which were illegal

All I see Sky and Wiggins guilty of is studying the rules of the game better than others (or finding loopholes in the rulebook) none of which are illegal. Have they been found guilty of breaking any rules on this matter? if not, to me it is a non-story. Professional sportsmen and teams will use any small advantage to win, as professional sport is result based, like it or not

BTW this is not a Team Sky/Wiggins love fest. I would have the same puzzled response is this were any team or rider

i guess it depends on whether you believe that a team/rider deciding to invent a medical condition that required a TUE for a drug that is not permitted in competition, and that confers an advantage to said rider, is important or not?
the testing protocols have caught up with the blood bag doping scam and so no professional team is greedy/crazy enough to try that these days - micro dosing perhaps is more a possibility
the committee investigation was into all sports not just cycling.

My point is the TUE system is in place, if that system is not good enough to weed out the 'fake' requests from the real requests then the system is broken. If a professional team exploited this broken system that is surely just playing the game? Just like if you count cards in a casino, should you? ethically probably not, but technically it is not cheating, and in professional sport technicalities are surely all that matter?

I just find the amount of time wasted on this report ridiculous, I would get it if it was an investigation into Olympic sport whereby the government are funding it, but the whole story seems to be Team Sky/Bradley Wiggins

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

The parliamentary report stated that no anti doping violations have taken place but sky have 'crossed an ethical boundary' Team Sky are a privately funded team, why do the government feel it necessary to stick their nose in?

Professional sport is result orientated, there are rules in place, if no rule has been broken, why does it matter? professional teams will always go as far as they can up to the line, this happens in all sports. If a footballer dives in the penalty area to get a penalty, that is crossing an ethical line, but there isn't this fervour to brandish them a cheat to this extent.

If I am not mistaken, TUE's have to be granted by a panel of experts after the medical facts are presented to them? if that panel have the wool pulled over there eyes and grant a TUE, then surely that is where the spotlight should be? the team have only done what they can to tip the balance in their favour, at the end of then day a board of medical professionals were presented with evidence and signed off on the TUE's why then is Bradley Wiggins being branded a cheat? Why is the board that grant the TUE's not been held accountable? And surely if their medical expertise resulted in the granting of the TUE's, how is this now such a big issue? surely some kind of medical need had to be established? and if it cannot be established then the TUE system needs a massive overhaul and that should be the story, not a team working within the system that was in front of them

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

Caffeine is a limited drug during competition as well, but if riders choose to use inflated levels and drink 30 espressos before training that is surely no different?

I am just so confused why everyone is piling on as if Bradley Wiggins and Sky are the same as Lance and USPS, they systematically were using EPO and blood bags which were illegal

All I see Sky and Wiggins guilty of is studying the rules of the game better than others (or finding loopholes in the rulebook) none of which are illegal. Have they been found guilty of breaking any rules on this matter? if not, to me it is a non-story. Professional sportsmen and teams will use any small advantage to win, as professional sport is result based, like it or not

BTW this is not a Team Sky/Wiggins love fest. I would have the same puzzled response is this were any team or rider

i guess it depends on whether you believe that a team/rider deciding to invent a medical condition that required a TUE for a drug that is not permitted in competition, and that confers an advantage to said rider, is important or not?
the testing protocols have caught up with the blood bag doping scam and so no professional team is greedy/crazy enough to try that these days - micro dosing perhaps is more a possibility
the committee investigation was into all sports not just cycling.

My point is the TUE system is in place, if that system is not good enough to weed out the 'fake' requests from the real requests then the system is broken. If a professional team exploited this broken system that is surely just playing the game? Just like if you count cards in a casino, should you? ethically probably not, but technically it is not cheating, and in professional sport technicalities are surely all that matter?

I just find the amount of time wasted on this report ridiculous, I would get it if it was an investigation into Olympic sport whereby the government are funding it, but the whole story seems to be Team Sky/Bradley Wiggins

Umm, if you're caught counting cards in an casino you won't get paid. It's not just unethical it's cheating. Plenty of case law in evidence if you fancy doing some research

On Wiggo's TUEs, they shouldn't have been waved through by the UCI's dodgy doctor Zorzoli best mates with Geert Leinders natch. Again, you can research that if you want

 

[jarvo]

My point is the TUE system is clearly broken (or was broken) surely this should be the point that needs to be addressed. There should never be a situation where you can just go and get an exemption because your mate can grant it. If Sky exploited that failure within the UCI or UK Anti doping or WADA or wherever else the ultimate failure in the TUE system, then the system needs addressing.

"Drugs were being used by Team Sky, within World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules, to enhance the performance of riders and not just to treat medical need"

This quote to me is contradictory. I don't see how you can take drugs within the WADA rules and also to enhance performance?

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

The parliamentary report stated that no anti doping violations have taken place but sky have 'crossed an ethical boundary' Team Sky are a privately funded team, why do the government feel it necessary to stick their nose in?

Professional sport is result orientated, there are rules in place, if no rule has been broken, why does it matter? professional teams will always go as far as they can up to the line, this happens in all sports. If a footballer dives in the penalty area to get a penalty, that is crossing an ethical line, but there isn't this fervour to brandish them a cheat to this extent.

If I am not mistaken, TUE's have to be granted by a panel of experts after the medical facts are presented to them? if that panel have the wool pulled over there eyes and grant a TUE, then surely that is where the spotlight should be? the team have only done what they can to tip the balance in their favour, at the end of then day a board of medical professionals were presented with evidence and signed off on the TUE's why then is Bradley Wiggins being branded a cheat? Why is the board that grant the TUE's not been held accountable? And surely if their medical expertise resulted in the granting of the TUE's, how is this now such a big issue? surely some kind of medical need had to be established? and if it cannot be established then the TUE system needs a massive overhaul and that should be the story, not a team working within the system that was in front of them

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

Caffeine is a limited drug during competition as well, but if riders choose to use inflated levels and drink 30 espressos before training that is surely no different?

I am just so confused why everyone is piling on as if Bradley Wiggins and Sky are the same as Lance and USPS, they systematically were using EPO and blood bags which were illegal

All I see Sky and Wiggins guilty of is studying the rules of the game better than others (or finding loopholes in the rulebook) none of which are illegal. Have they been found guilty of breaking any rules on this matter? if not, to me it is a non-story. Professional sportsmen and teams will use any small advantage to win, as professional sport is result based, like it or not

BTW this is not a Team Sky/Wiggins love fest. I would have the same puzzled response is this were any team or rider

i guess it depends on whether you believe that a team/rider deciding to invent a medical condition that required a TUE for a drug that is not permitted in competition, and that confers an advantage to said rider, is important or not?
the testing protocols have caught up with the blood bag doping scam and so no professional team is greedy/crazy enough to try that these days - micro dosing perhaps is more a possibility
the committee investigation was into all sports not just cycling.

My point is the TUE system is in place, if that system is not good enough to weed out the 'fake' requests from the real requests then the system is broken. If a professional team exploited this broken system that is surely just playing the game? Just like if you count cards in a casino, should you? ethically probably not, but technically it is not cheating, and in professional sport technicalities are surely all that matter?

I just find the amount of time wasted on this report ridiculous, I would get it if it was an investigation into Olympic sport whereby the government are funding it, but the whole story seems to be Team Sky/Bradley Wiggins

First of all - I agree with you, the TUE system is a flaw. It should be fixed because it is too easy to mis-use. The TUE's (at the time) were examined and granted by one single person, not a panel. Another way to potentially mis-use the system. It is probably also very hard for a doctor to challenge the treatment analysis made by another doctor (team doctor) about his patient without challenging the professionalism of another doctor - so I believe the doctor who activated the TUE's were merely a rubber stamp. I guess the only way fix it is to either ban all those medicines outright, in and out of competition, no TUE's anymore. If you are sick and you need banned medication, you don't compete. OR maybe the analysis of a recurring disease (such as Asthma) should only be activated and confirmed by individual panel of doctors for professional sports, administrated by WADA. For those who have been diagnosed to have genuine disease in that panel, would get a right for TUE - but still there should be "grace period" after you've taken any banned substance before you can compete. And maybe things like Sports Induced asthma should not be treated as genuine disease that would give you right for TUE's. How is that anyhow different to i.e. chronic knee injury as a result of too hard training?

Secondly - when it comes to why everyone are interested about this in regards to Sky... I agree they haven't broken any rules. The key revelation here is that the report hits directly to their inner core of existence that they've publicly called out the past 9 years. Which is they are the cleanest team in sports with the highest ethics. In some ways the report says they've lied to public for past 9 years. That is why it is so interesting. Yes they haven't broke any rules, but they haven't actually lived according their promise. You can see from the reactions of Sky (and Wiggins) that they are equally worried about it - they immediately fight fiercely against it - so they don't like it a lot. It is a blow to the chest. And remember, this is not over. This was one piece of investigation of the whole matter, starting from UKAD investigation, now being part of parliament overall investigation about doping in sports, and the still ongoing CHS investigation about the medical practices in BC and Sky. Remember that investigation MIGHT still reveal wrongdoing i.e. in the form of what was in the Jiffy Bag. And those revelation can open again the UKAD investigation and lead to doping offence. It is all about Freeman and the whistle blower I guess.

Thirdly, I'm not sure if you've read the actual report, but there are a LOT of other sports and matters covered in the report. So it definitely is not about Sky/Wiggins only. The media has made it to look like it is. As I can understand it, it is a collection of examples where in general the public and authorities has been misled by sports authorities, or questionable methods has been used by some athletes/teams, or generic medical record and treatment best practices haven't been followed by people and institution practicing sports. Based on these examples, the committee has provided multiple suggestion to further clean-up the sports, such as providing more funding to UKAD to police the UK sports arena better, banning some medical products (such as the one used by Wiggins for good), fix the TUE process to avoid mis-use. I would say it is not all waste of money, if these suggestions from lead politicians will lead to an action. I think quite a bit of people misunderstands the whole goal of the committee and it's report, it is not about finding whether Bradley Wiggins doped, it is about finding out whether the practices and methods used in the sport are sustainable and if not, what kind of improvements can be made to make it better. Again as said, media has made it a hunt against Wiggins and Sky.

 

[ontheroad]

So it turned out that Wiggins had very little to say and in fact didn't shock anybody.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bradley-wiggins-what-i-have-to-say-will-shock-a-few-people/

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

 

[Craigee]

Clearly Wiggins is doing only one thing every time he says he's going to shock everyone.

He's threatening Sir Dave and his cohorts isn't he? Putting the wind up them but how can he? He would ruin his own life if he did come clean.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

Possibly to avoid issues if he's tested on day one? He did come second in the Prologue after all which was fairly predictable. 18-36 hours biological half life I think?

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

Authorised and expired the same day.

 

[Craigee]

Can you guys answer this? If you're allowed a one off TUE (injection) for a tour would it not give you licence to give the rider more injections of a small amount of the said substance during the tour? They won't charge you will they because they would expect there to be a trace of the substance for so many days at least if it comes up in a test.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

Possibly to avoid issues if he's tested on day one? He did come second in the Prologue after all which was fairly predictable. 18-36 hours biological half life I think?

Yes, that makes sense. If one is allowed to take it > 12 hours before a race, it seems to me that testers should have to take this into account. But I can certainly imagine a rider preferring to avoid a possible problem by just getting the TUE, so there wouldn't be any question if he was tested early and was still glowing. It would be classified as an AAF, but would be dismissed very early in the results management process.

Edit: Rownham Hill, below, refers to a Wiggins interview in which he basically confirms this. Because the drug is apparently detectable for a week or more after taking it, one would need or at least want a TUE if taking it within that window before a race.

Now here's a question for someone with respiratory problems. Would a single dose of triamcinolone a few days before the Tour clear up your airways so you could ride with no problem throughout the race, or at least reduce the problems to one manageable with salbutamol? Or is this something you would need to take several times? One of his TUEs mentions that a doctor wanted Wiggins to repeat the treatment at some point. I believe Wiggins has always maintained he only took triamcinolone that one time in 2012.

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

No, the date of application and the expiration date are both June 26, so clearly it was for that day only.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Can you guys answer this? If you're allowed a one off TUE (injection) for a tour would it not give you licence to give the rider more injections of a small amount of the said substance during the tour? They won't charge you will they because they would expect there to be a trace of the substance for so many days at least if it comes up in a test.

Not really. If it doesn't match with the expected half-life then you're going to have to explain it. Basically you'll end up in Froome's situation. Specifically, with something like triamcinolone, which is used to loose weight, there wouldn't be much point doing it during a Tour I would think. Too much risk for too little reward.

 

[RownhamHill]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

Not sure about the specific rules, but in reading the transcript of Wiggins interview with the BBC yesterday (via Dan Roan's twitter handle if you haven't seen it) Wiggins says that if you use this medicine without an TUE you're not allowed to compete for either 8 or 10 days afterwards (I forget which) - presumably because of the residue/half-life upsetting in competition tests. As I say I'm basing this entirely on that Wiggins interview, so I'm not sure what the exact rules are.

That said, if you're right and the TUE wasn't in fact necessary, there's also the possibility - I guess - that he applied for the TUE because he/the team thought it was the right thing to do. . .

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

Authorised and expired the same day.

OK - if that is indeed the case, then this part of the parliament report raises multiple very interesting questions in my mind (not only about Wiggins):

"There was also no TUE in place for Bradley Wiggins to permit its use at that time; however, an
application for a TUE, dated 30 May 2011, to allow Bradley Wiggins to use triamcinolone
had been submitted to WADA. Bradley Wiggins’ TUE for triamcinolone was not granted
until 26 June 2011. This fact is evidence that Bradley Wiggins, or a member of his team,
wished him to take triamcinolone around that time. Bradley Wiggins’ coach Shane
Sutton has confirmed to the Committee that he was aware of the TUE application for
triamcinolone that had been made by Dr Freeman to treat Wiggins, and that he believed
this was in place when the team was in La Toussuire on 12 June. Therefore, if triamcinolone
had been administered during a competition period it would not have given him any
cause for concern. Shane Sutton told us that “[Dr Freeman] told me virtually the minute
he got the TUE and I think it was end of May [2011] [but I] can’t be 100%. That’s why I
thought everything was above board.”"

How the hell wouldn't TUE granted on end of May would not cause concerns on 12th June? I can hardly believe Sutton would be that unaware of the process of the TUE's given he has spent quite a while in cycling.

And this paragraph also suggest to me that it took 26 days (!) to get authorization for the TUE submitted on 31st. If this is the general lead time (I hope not for the sake of heath in really serious cases) for getting the TUE authorized, then what is the reason to use triamcinolone anymore on 26th June. At the end it is used for acute Asthma symptoms. Were the Sky doctors wizards that projected Wiggo will have acute need for Asthma medication on 26th June? Or did Wiggo suffer for acute Asthma symptoms for 26 days before getting medication? Something doesn't add up here, maybe I don't fully understand the process...

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Can you guys answer this? If you're allowed a one off TUE (injection) for a tour would it not give you licence to give the rider more injections of a small amount of the said substance during the tour? They won't charge you will they because they would expect there to be a trace of the substance for so many days at least if it comes up in a test.

Not really. If it doesn't match with the expected half-life then you're going to have to explain it. Basically you'll end up in Froome's situation. Specifically, with something like triamcinolone, which is used to loose weight, there wouldn't be much point doing it during a Tour I would think. Too much risk for too little reward.

I thought the basis of the OOC rule specific to cortisone etc was that without a TUE you weren't allowed to compete for a period of 2 weeks after use...hence the need for the TUE on the 26th June?

Another thing i understood was that as well as weight loss, the anti inflammatory properties of such drugs can give some benefits in reducing pain during sustained physical exertion, hence the ban and perceived benefits of use in competition.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

OK - if that is indeed the case, then this part of the parliament report raises multiple very interesting questions in my mind (not only about Wiggins):

"There was also no TUE in place for Bradley Wiggins to permit its use at that time; however, an
application for a TUE, dated 30 May 2011, to allow Bradley Wiggins to use triamcinolone
had been submitted to WADA. Bradley Wiggins’ TUE for triamcinolone was not granted
until 26 June 2011. This fact is evidence that Bradley Wiggins, or a member of his team,
wished him to take triamcinolone around that time. Bradley Wiggins’ coach Shane
Sutton has confirmed to the Committee that he was aware of the TUE application for
triamcinolone that had been made by Dr Freeman to treat Wiggins, and that he believed
this was in place when the team was in La Toussuire on 12 June. Therefore, if triamcinolone
had been administered during a competition period it would not have given him any
cause for concern. Shane Sutton told us that “[Dr Freeman] told me virtually the minute
he got the TUE and I think it was end of May [2011] [but I] can’t be 100%. That’s why I
thought everything was above board.”"

A TUE application for May 30 makes sense, because the Dauphine began June 3. He would have wanted a TUE a few days before that race, just as he wanted one a few days before the Tour. The June 26 TUE, the only one for 2012 published by FB, also refers to a doctor's recommendation for "repeating the treatment...when he returns from the Dauphine". So the same doctor recommended the May 30 application, even if not granted, then apparently recommended the June 26 one.

Wiggins of course had a busy racing schedule in 2012; in addition to the Tour in July and the Dauphine in June, there was Tour de Romandie in April, and before that Paris-Nice. If he was using triamcinolone without a TUE OOC, he would have needed a lot of TUEs to extend the program while racing.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Can you guys answer this? If you're allowed a one off TUE (injection) for a tour would it not give you licence to give the rider more injections of a small amount of the said substance during the tour? They won't charge you will they because they would expect there to be a trace of the substance for so many days at least if it comes up in a test.

Not really. If it doesn't match with the expected half-life then you're going to have to explain it. Basically you'll end up in Froome's situation. Specifically, with something like triamcinolone, which is used to loose weight, there wouldn't be much point doing it during a Tour I would think. Too much risk for too little reward.

I thought the basis of the OOC rule specific to cortisone etc was that without a TUE you weren't allowed to compete for a period of 2 weeks after use...hence the need for the TUE on the 26th June?

Another thing i understood was that as well as weight loss, the anti inflammatory properties of such drugs can give some benefits in reducing pain during sustained physical exertion, hence the ban and perceived benefits of use in competition.

I don’t know if that’s still the rules but as RH mentioned up thread, it appears it was at the time so that explains it.

I don’t know if WADA have ever outlined exactly why the ban coticos in competition but not out of to be honest. I’ve never checked. I’d assume it’s a combination of things, that included no doubt.

 

[RownhamHill]

Re: Re:

Possibly to avoid issues if he's tested on day one? He did come second in the Prologue after all which was fairly predictable. 18-36 hours biological half life I think?

Yes, that makes sense. If one is allowed to take it > 12 hours before a race, it seems to me that testers should have to take this into account. But I can certainly imagine a rider preferring to avoid a possible problem by just getting the TUE, so there wouldn't be any question if he was tested early and was still glowing. It would be classified as an AAF, but would be dismissed very early in the results management process.

Edit: Rownham Hill, below, refers to a Wiggins interview in which he basically confirms this. Because the drug is apparently detectable for a week or more after taking it, one would need or at least want a TUE if taking it within that window before a race.

Now here's a question for someone with respiratory problems. Would a single dose of triamcinolone a few days before the Tour clear up your airways so you could ride with no problem throughout the race, or at least reduce the problems to one manageable with salbutamol? Or is this something you would need to take several times? One of his TUEs mentions that a doctor wanted Wiggins to repeat the treatment at some point. I believe Wiggins has always maintained he only took triamcinolone that one time in 2012.

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

No, the date of application and the expiration date are both June 26, so clearly it was for that day only.

Again from his interview yesterday he says he took it four times: before the TdFs in 2011 and 2012, and before the Giro in 2013 (all with a TUE - think all three were revealed by Fancy Bears), and then he mentioned another time he took it OOC without a TUE (can't remember the date). I think he was (on the face of it) taking it for hayfever rather than ashtma though.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

OK - if that is indeed the case, then this part of the parliament report raises multiple very interesting questions in my mind (not only about Wiggins):

"There was also no TUE in place for Bradley Wiggins to permit its use at that time; however, an
application for a TUE, dated 30 May 2011, to allow Bradley Wiggins to use triamcinolone
had been submitted to WADA. Bradley Wiggins’ TUE for triamcinolone was not granted
until 26 June 2011. This fact is evidence that Bradley Wiggins, or a member of his team,
wished him to take triamcinolone around that time. Bradley Wiggins’ coach Shane
Sutton has confirmed to the Committee that he was aware of the TUE application for
triamcinolone that had been made by Dr Freeman to treat Wiggins, and that he believed
this was in place when the team was in La Toussuire on 12 June. Therefore, if triamcinolone
had been administered during a competition period it would not have given him any
cause for concern. Shane Sutton told us that “[Dr Freeman] told me virtually the minute
he got the TUE and I think it was end of May [2011] [but I] can’t be 100%. That’s why I
thought everything was above board.”"

A TUE application for May 30 makes sense, because the Dauphine began June 3. He would have wanted a TUE a few days before that race, just as he wanted one a few days before the Tour. The June 26 TUE, the only one for 2012 published by FB, also refers to a doctor's recommendation for "repeating the treatment...when he returns from the Dauphine". So the same doctor recommended the May 30 application, even if not granted, then apparently recommended the June 26 one.

So either Wiggins was trying to get a TUE before every major race just to clear his lungs for that race, or he was taking triamcinolone throughout the season, using TUEs when possible to extend the program up to within a few days of a major race.

I think this is spot-on.

You could read though based on the report that the 30th May request was only approved 26th June - being the one and only request, but I guess that is just bad formulation in the report.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Possibly to avoid issues if he's tested on day one? He did come second in the Prologue after all which was fairly predictable. 18-36 hours biological half life I think?

Yes, that makes sense. If one is allowed to take it > 12 hours before a race, it seems to me that testers should have to take this into account. But I can certainly imagine a rider preferring to avoid a possible problem by just getting the TUE, so there wouldn't be any question if he was tested early and was still glowing. It would be classified as an AAF, but would be dismissed very early in the results management process.

Edit: Rownham Hill, below, refers to a Wiggins interview in which he basically confirms this. Because the drug is apparently detectable for a week or more after taking it, one would need or at least want a TUE if taking it within that window before a race.

Now here's a question for someone with respiratory problems. Would a single dose of triamcinolone a few days before the Tour clear up your airways so you could ride with no problem throughout the race, or at least reduce the problems to one manageable with salbutamol? Or is this something you would need to take several times? One of his TUEs mentions that a doctor wanted Wiggins to repeat the treatment at some point. I believe Wiggins has always maintained he only took triamcinolone that one time in 2012.

How long is the TUE valid? might be more than couple of days?

No, the date of application and the expiration date are both June 26, so clearly it was for that day only.

Again from his interview yesterday he says he took it four times: before the TdFs in 2011 and 2012, and before the Giro in 2013 (all with a TUE - think all three were revealed by Fancy Bears), and then he mentioned another time he took it OOC without a TUE (can't remember the date). I think he was (on the face of it) taking it for hayfever rather than ashtma though.

He also mentioned in the interview that he had a shot in the knee for a specific knee problem at the end of the Giro 2013, no TUE applied for as he knew he wouldn't be competing again for several weeks.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

Can I ask a question and I don't know if it has been asked or answered as I haven't gone back through the dozens of pages, but, why does anyone actually care about this?

There are fairly simple answers to most of your questions, which have been discussed in this and other threads, but this one is important:

Also if I am not mistaken Triamcinalone is not a banned substance out of competition either? so if the team wanted to use it during training blocks, this is also not illegal, so again what is the issue? Also if it is such a powerful performance enhancer why is it not on the complete banned list by WADA?

The direct answer to this question is that there isn't always a sharp line between substances that are necessary for health and those that have PE effects, so it isn't always possible to treat these substances in a consistent manner. That's why some are now proposing triamcinolone should be banned all the time. But what I really wanted to point out is something I hadn't noticed before: all three of Wiggins's TUEs--the ones that were published by Fancy Bears--were dated at a time that clearly made them out-of-competition. E.g., the one in 2012 was dated June 26, four days before the start of the Tour that year. Since OOC is generally defined as > 12 hours before a race begins, and I'm pretty sure Wiggins wasn't in another race at that date, why did he even need a TUE?

He may very well have been using it before then, and if he was indeed using it for performance enhancement, he surely was. But why did he apply for a TUE at that time if it wasn't necessary?

I believe I read that the TUE is a cover for microdosing the same substance throughout the ensuing weeks. So that during the Grand Tour, when one is tested, the traces showing up are attributed to leftovers from the supposed OOC dosage that the TUE was granted for weeks ago, when in reality they are from much more recent microdose top-ups.

Can't remember where I read this though, and should be easily refutable/verifiable by checking how long the body continues to excrete small amounts.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

He also mentioned in the interview that he had a shot in the knee for a specific knee problem at the end of the Giro 2013, no TUE applied for as he knew he wouldn't be competing again for several weeks.

Then that would account for the fourth time, in addition to the three published TUEs. So Wiggins is apparently on record as having taking triamcinolone only four times, is that correct? He would staunchly deny having taken it without a TUE except for that one time in 2013.

But it's at least of interest that he wanted to take it before the 2012 Dauphine, and apparently wasn't allowed to, yet still won the race. So did he really need triamcinolone at that time? Apparently not.

I believe I read that the TUE is a cover for microdosing the same substance throughout the ensuing weeks. So that during the Grand Tour, when one is tested, the traces showing up are attributed to leftovers from the supposed OOC dosage that the TUE was granted for weeks ago, when in reality they are from much more recent microdose top-ups.

That's possible for some drugs, but since triamcinolone is apparently mostly used for weight loss, it's not something one would want to take during a race. It's main benefit is in preparing for the race.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

He also mentioned in the interview that he had a shot in the knee for a specific knee problem at the end of the Giro 2013, no TUE applied for as he knew he wouldn't be competing again for several weeks.

Then that would account for the fourth time, in addition to the three published TUEs. So Wiggins is apparently on record as having taking triamcinolone only four times, is that correct? He would staunchly deny having taken it without a TUE except for that one time in 2013.

But it's at least of interest that he wanted to take it before the 2012 Dauphine, and apparently wasn't allowed to, yet still won the race. So did he really need triamcinolone at that time? Apparently not.

And this is exactly where I'm coming as well. It is a quite co-incident that his specific need for acute asthma medication always happened couple of days before GT. Now we know that he requested TUE also couple of days before Dauphine 2012. Someone could draw a some sort of conclusion that those TUE's were only requested to cover up if he glows from systematic use. And I guess we all agree that athlete requiring systematic use of steroids for acute Asthma treatment should not be winning GT's? Wonder how many TUE's submissions there actually is that hasn't been granted or we are not aware about. Before every race he competed?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

He also mentioned in the interview that he had a shot in the knee for a specific knee problem at the end of the Giro 2013, no TUE applied for as he knew he wouldn't be competing again for several weeks.

Then that would account for the fourth time, in addition to the three published TUEs. So Wiggins is apparently on record as having taking triamcinolone only four times, is that correct? He would staunchly deny having taken it without a TUE except for that one time in 2013.

But it's at least of interest that he wanted to take it before the 2012 Dauphine, and apparently wasn't allowed to, yet still won the race. So did he really need triamcinolone at that time? Apparently not.

And this is exactly where I'm coming as well. It is a quite co-incident that his specific need for acute asthma medication always happened couple of days before GT. Now we know that he requested TUE also couple of days before Dauphine 2012. Someone could draw a some sort of conclusion that those TUE's were only requested to cover up if he glows from systematic use. And I guess we all agree that athlete requiring systematic use of steroids for acute Asthma treatment should not be winning GT's? Wonder how many TUE's submissions there actually is that hasn't been granted or we are not aware about. Before every race he competed?

He says it was for a pollen allergy as well.