Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 54 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
bambino said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

Of course he does. There are other normal and completely non-banned medications for pollen allergy.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
bambino said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

The pre Giro one seems a bit at odds here....i mean you could possibly buy the reasoning about high pollen seasons through the fields of France in June and July......but what about Italy in May?

The Giro is notorious for the changeable weather, genuine question....is pollen the same issue there in May?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

Beech Mtn said:
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.

Apparently is an interesting word isn't it? Scientists are still finding new things about all kinds of drugs. Many drugs produce effects that are still not yet fully understood. It looks like Sky has a pharmacy programme to me and they may see long term advantages in microdosing triamcinolone that most experts don't see.

I doubt very much that Wiggin would be disqualified from the Tour with traces of triamcinolone, even in the last week.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Merckx index said:
jarvo said:
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.

IIRC Wiggo's triamcinolene injections were intra-muscular rather than intra-venous and as a result the release into the system was much slower the theory being that that allowed for top ups during the GTs in question and in 2012 a top up before the Olympics
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

Beech Mtn said:
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.

Yes, in the BBC interview, that's exactly what he said...only ever used 4 times and flatly denied the report saying he'd used it more than that. In his own words anyone saying he's used it more than that was maliciously trying to smear him.
 
Re:

jarvo said:
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

Jarvo: Your posts may be few, but your insights, intuition and common sense are right on the mark.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
jarvo said:
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

Jarvo: Your posts may be few, but your insights, intuition and common sense are right on the mark.

because the system can be gamed if you have a doc (in this case that would be the doc who lost the laptop and never turned up to the committee) who is prepared to say you need a TUE when you may not need a TUE

If that were to be the case then there is an infringement

also not sure if you noticed that the pharmacy cupboard was a shared resource between BC and SKY and...well...they have no records....

oh...and we have an 'outperforming' track team at BC... lots of enhanced performances there.......
 
Re:

jarvo said:
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?
Basically, they're the department for sport, they can look at most anything sporting related. There is also the question of money being spent, specifically money being spent combating doping. This article may be of some interest to you:
“…monitors [sic] the policy, administration and expenditure of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated bodies, including the BBC, on behalf of the House of Commons and the electorate. It also conducts inquiries into areas of current interest within its remit…”
The rest of the article has some interesting things to say in general.
jarvo said:
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.
I think it matters because rules are not set in stone, rules evolve, rules can be both proactive and reactive. The DCMS report is proposing reactive rule changes.
jarvo said:
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
In Wiggins's case, it wasn't a panel of experts: it was one man. UCI have put their hand up to that issue and say it's fixed. In Froome's case, there's no panel of experts, there's a threshold. Furthemore, rules are there to be gamed, rules will always be gamed.
jarvo said:
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 issue is ethics and morality and whether rules need to be amended. The OOC use of certain substances is clearly being gamed by some.
jarvo said:
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?
Could we please *** off already with the caffeine? Seriously, in all my years following this sport, everybody thinks they're being clever bringing up coffee. They're not.
jarvo said:
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
Some would argue that Sky are worse than LA in that: a) they arrived at a time when the culture of the sport was changing and a new generation was coming through; and b) they trumpeted an ethical stance and their deeds have fallen far short of their words. Some, anyway, would say that.
jarvo said:
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
The legality of loopholes is never clear until those making use of them get challenged. See the recent discussion of tax avoidance.
jarvo said:
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'm sure you would.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
jarvo said:
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

Jarvo: Your posts may be few, but your insights, intuition and common sense are right on the mark.

because the system can be gamed if you have a doc (in this case that would be the doc who lost the laptop and never turned up to the committee) who is prepared to say you need a TUE when you may not need a TUE

If that were to be the case then there is an infringement

also not sure if you noticed that the pharmacy cupboard was a shared resource between BC and SKY and...well...they have no records....

oh...and we have an 'outperforming' track team at BC... lots of enhanced performances there.......

Rabbit warren of after the fact sleuths on duty today. All for great purpose of justice and all that. FFS. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
jarvo said:
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

Jarvo: Your posts may be few, but your insights, intuition and common sense are right on the mark.

because the system can be gamed if you have a doc (in this case that would be the doc who lost the laptop and never turned up to the committee) who is prepared to say you need a TUE when you may not need a TUE

If that were to be the case then there is an infringement

also not sure if you noticed that the pharmacy cupboard was a shared resource between BC and SKY and...well...they have no records....

oh...and we have an 'outperforming' track team at BC... lots of enhanced performances there.......

Rabbit warren of after the fact sleuths on duty today. All for great purpose of justice and all that. FFS. :lol: :lol: :lol:


after the facts?! this forum has existed a long time and numerous contributors have pointed to skys (and other teams) suspicious results long before now!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

Beech Mtn said:
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.

Yes, in the BBC interview, that's exactly what he said...only ever used 4 times and flatly denied the report saying he'd used it more than that. In his own words anyone saying he's used it more than that was maliciously trying to smear him.

The full transcript of yesterday's interview - where he says four times use - is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639.

On digging this out link I realise my earlier posts were wrong - I said he used it for hayfever not ashtma, but in fact he's saying it was pollen induced ashtma (is that a bit of both?). I also said re the timing of the TUE that he claimed he couldn't race for 10 days afterwards, but I can't actually see him say that - he does say re the non-TUE OOC use that he didn't need a TUE because he wasn't going to race in the next 2 weeks. He also says he didn't use it OOC on the bus after the dauphine in 2011, because if he had it would have showed up in his British Road Race test (which he won) and he would have got banned, which I think last night I must have taken as meaning he couldn't use the drug OOC and then race a week later!
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
jarvo said:
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

Jarvo: Your posts may be few, but your insights, intuition and common sense are right on the mark.

because the system can be gamed if you have a doc (in this case that would be the doc who lost the laptop and never turned up to the committee) who is prepared to say you need a TUE when you may not need a TUE

If that were to be the case then there is an infringement

also not sure if you noticed that the pharmacy cupboard was a shared resource between BC and SKY and...well...they have no records....

oh...and we have an 'outperforming' track team at BC... lots of enhanced performances there.......

Rabbit warren of after the fact sleuths on duty today. All for great purpose of justice and all that. FFS. :lol: :lol: :lol:

yup discussing newsworthy event on a...eh...discussion board...crazy eh....I'm a crazy guy ;)
 
Re: Re:

RownhamHill said:
brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
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.

Beech Mtn said:
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.

Yes, in the BBC interview, that's exactly what he said...only ever used 4 times and flatly denied the report saying he'd used it more than that. In his own words anyone saying he's used it more than that was maliciously trying to smear him.

The full transcript of yesterday's interview - where he says four times use - is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43294639.

On digging this out link I realise my earlier posts were wrong - I said he used it for hayfever not ashtma, but in fact he's saying it was pollen induced ashtma (is that a bit of both?). I also said re the timing of the TUE that he claimed he couldn't race for 10 days afterwards, but I can't actually see him say that - he does say re the non-TUE OOC use that he didn't need a TUE because he wasn't going to race in the next 2 weeks. He also says he didn't use it OOC on the bus after the dauphine in 2011, because if he had it would have showed up in his British Road Race test (which he won) and he would have got banned, which I think last night I must have taken as meaning he couldn't use the drug OOC and then race a week later!

The national road race in 2011 was 26th June, two weeks after the end of Dauphine. I doubt he would've been showing any traces after 2 weeks.

Interestingly the RR champ is also the day the TUE was authorized and given it is only that day, he was I guess taking the drug on the day he won the national RR.
 

Ap1

Mar 6, 2018
2
0
0
I use Triamcinolone - I have Psoriatic Arthritis & Ankylosing Spondylitis and I use the drug when I feel a flare up coming on. I also have asthma - what I’ve personally found with Triamcinolone is that it’s effects on breathing are pretty negligible - when I’ve used it I still have to use my salbutamol inhaler as often as normal when cycling. Oral prednisolone is much more effective and if I’m prescribed that to manage my asthma during say a respiratory infection or a cold the effect is very noticeable.

The thing with Triamcinolone is that it’s so powerful. The day after I’ve had a shot of 120 to 160mg I clock up PBs on almost every segment I ride on Strava (I train daily) and it doesn’t even feel like I’m putting any effort in. Pain threshold goes up too - I can hold a higher wattage for much longer. The other effect is weight - it can strip you of anywhere between 1 to 4kg in a week. However, I’ve found that the weight loss is temporary, it creeps back up unless you’re severely calorie deficient. It’s insane the temporary effect it has on performance though - and I don’t even use it for that effect, it’s just something I notice.

There’s no way Wiggins and Freeman didn’t choose this drug because of the performance enhancement. He probably did have allergies causing respiratory distress.....but there are a myriad of effective but less powerful drugs that could have been used instead. A GP for example wouldn’t prescribe I.M Kenalog for this. It’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I think, and many others do, that Triamcinolone was chosen because it is a performance enhancer.
 
Re: Re:

That's interesting. Are you sure it was the 26th in 2011 and not 2012? If it was 2011 I'm surprised the Clinic hasn't unearthed that before (though maybe it has, I haven't been paying attention that closely for a while).
 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/43306210
You choose your heroes but you don't control them. You fly along in their slipstream but when they go down you go down with them.
...
Wiggins does a television interview. A phone call from a colleague: he has watched it, and he sees an honest man telling the truth. A call from another colleague: he has been listening to it on the radio in his car, and denials, the wording, he says, makes him think of Lance Armstrong and all those interviews before the truth finally, reluctantly, came out.
 
Re:

jarvo said:
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

Sky/British Cycling had blurred the lines in the operations of both.
 
Re:

jarvo said:
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?

Wiggins and other riders that are involved in the TUE system indicate that they need it to bring them back to their prime level of competitiveness (or something like that). How is it determined, if at all, that it isn't taking them above their previous prime level/or competitive level and giving them a competitive edge? Wiggins himself seemed to be uncertain as to if it did or not.
 
Re: Re:

RownhamHill said:
That's interesting. Are you sure it was the 26th in 2011 and not 2012? If it was 2011 I'm surprised the Clinic hasn't unearthed that before (though maybe it has, I haven't been paying attention that closely for a while).

Google says it was 26th June on 2011 and 24th June on 2012.
 
Re: Re:

RownhamHill said:
That's interesting. Are you sure it was the 26th in 2011 and not 2012? If it was 2011 I'm surprised the Clinic hasn't unearthed that before (though maybe it has, I haven't been paying attention that closely for a while).

Wiggins has no idea what was in the jiffy bag. Nobody knows really. He didn’t had anything on the bus. Then they go to Sestriere. Wiggo says:

BBC: So there was no injection?

"No. Absolutely not. We travelled six hours later on a training camp to Sestiere at high altitude and I was treated that night when the doctor came with Fluimucil with a nebuliser.

He says he was given Fluimucil through nebulizer. To be noted that Fluimucil was used “in the old days” as a recovery drug injectable as witnessed by Froome at Barloworld where he got these injections (Kimmage interview).

BBC: Was there not something there that evening?

"In Sestriere, out of competition, not on the bus. Because we are still tidying up - I was doing podium, I was doing press, I was doing dope control. I had just won the race.

"We were going to a training camp then in Sestriere for one week after that, which we all travelled to from La Toussuire to Sestriere, a three-hour drive, two-and-a-half-hour drive, whatever it is. The doctor came with us to Sestriere to then treat the riders, whatever they needed, any niggles."

BBC: Which doctor?

"Doctor Freeman."

To be noted that Wiggo says: “out of competition”. It doesn’t matter when you take fluimucil, it’s legal so why mention “OOC”?

BBC: So they go to the trouble of bringing Fluimucil that they could have bought locally all the way over from Manchester via Simon Cope, which you were then given the following day?

"That evening. The same evening, the day the race finished. We then drove to Sestriere, Dr Freeman came to Sestriere, we were all then treated then. Everyone is scrambling around at the end of races, getting their bags, suitcases, people are going different directions."

BBC: You are saying you don't know what was in this package?

"I don't know. I can only go on what I have been told. Apparently it was for me, I don't know. Could have been for anyone, but apparently it was for me.

"The anonymous source said it was for me, so I don't know. I can only tell you, if it did have Triamcinolone in it, it didn't go in my backside. Which is what is being suggested, because it would have shown in my urine at the National Road Race."

The national Road Race was in two weeks time on the 26th of June 2011, Dauphine finished on June 12. I am not so sure it would have shown after 14 days in the urine, This study, albeit for IA injection Kenacort 40 mg gives a detection time of 12 days.:
https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/034/424/RUG01-001034424_2010_0001_AC.pdf

Why is Wiggo giving this type of excuse? Although he lost his laptop in Greece, I am pretty sure Freeman knows exactly for how long Kenacort can be detected in urine.