Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[mjr]

Jonathan Vaughters was specifically NOT allowed to have treatment for a sting to his face during the 2001 TdF!

Isn't the current system, last updated December 2015 different to how it worked in 2001? I didn't find a good history of the topic.

 

[coldash]

That is indeed the reason, but the question is whether that is how they are used. The intended sequence is: Rider needs medication (for welfare) -> TUE -> rider is treated. The actual sequence can be Rider needs PED -> TUE -> Rider receives PED.
The "bee sting" case is an example of valid use. Froome's use of oral corticosteroids at Romandie in 2014 is possibly a little bit questionable (I'm no medic so I don't know but I've seen it questioned). Wiggins' use of injectable triamcinolone even more questionable (again I'm no medic, but it has been questioned a lot). Sutton's statement that "if finding the gains might mean getting a TUE that's OK because the rules allow it" is even more questionable because it suggests the sequence of events leading to the TUE can start with the need for performance gain, not rider welfare. So it's a gradual scale.

That was my gist.

As to the "if one then all", my question is more "if one then why not others?". Once the trust has gone, you just don't know.

How the TUE system can be changed to strengthen it to avoid abuse but retain patient confidentiality and protect rider welfare. Good question. I don't know.

That all seems very reasonable to me!

It goes way beyond BC and Sky. All teams will probably follow the same practices.
(It is a sport wide problem eg. Football doesn’t seem to have a problem injecting players full of cortisone)

(Sorry for the long quote reply - it’s a bit difficult doing the edit stuff on a mobile)

 

[coldash]

I'm certainly not dismissing it as a possibility.

What’s your betting and who do you think is mostly likely to have been “advantaged”

 

[Dave Davenport]

I think the waiving of patient confidentiality in relation to TUE's is reasonable, if you're not prepared to have them in the open you don't get one.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

What’s your betting and who do you think is mostly likely to have been “advantaged”

I am not speculating just commenting that it is not something I am going to dismiss as possible

 

[Adam4868]

That all seems very reasonable to me!

It goes way beyond BC and Sky. All teams will probably follow the same practices.
(It is a sport wide problem eg. Football doesn’t seem to have a problem injecting players full of cortisone)

(Sorry for the long quote reply - it’s a bit difficult doing the edit stuff on a mobile)

You sure.....Theres plenty of injections dished out in the premiership.Phil Jones had 6 for Englands match recently.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...-injections-says-angry-mourinho-36341966.html

 

[mjr]

I think the waiving of patient confidentiality in relation to TUE's is reasonable, if you're not prepared to have them in the open you don't get one.

All TUEs or would you be allowed privacy if you then didn't compete for X months? Otherwise, I suspect it would mainly increase the number of cyclists retiring early to get treatment, like Chris Boardman did.

 

[coldash]

You sure.....Theres plenty of injections dished out in the premiership.Phil Jones had 6 for Englands match recently.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...-injections-says-angry-mourinho-36341966.html

Unclear on my part. When I said they don’t have a problem I meant that they do it all they time and nobody in the Press seems inclined to step out of their hospitality suite to question it.

 

[Dave Davenport]

All TUEs or would you be allowed privacy if you then didn't compete for X months? Otherwise, I suspect it would mainly increase the number of cyclists retiring early to get treatment, like Chris Boardman did.

Given that it seems very likely that the TUE system has been 'played' and that there is a need to tighten the rules and build some trust, I'd say that in future, if you want a TUE you should have to give up your privacy.

 

[NickNick]

Given that it seems very likely that the TUE system has been 'played' and that there is a need to tighten the rules and build some trust, I'd say that in future, if you want a TUE you should have to give up your privacy.

Agreed, its the only way to stop it descending back into the mess its currently in.

 

[lyn1]

I’m not sure I agree with the gist of this . The reason TUEs exist is to allow teams to supply otherwise banned drugs subject to medical approval. This applies not only to Sky but riders who get TUEs to allow bee stings etc to be treated

How far does the “if one did it, they all did it” go. Are you including Cooke, Hoy, Kenny(s), Pooley etc?

I agree that the TUE system has to be changed and having a couple of independent and trustworthy doctors making the assessment would be a start. How that squares with reviewing the decisions and confidentiality is another matter.

That was done by Brian Cookson

"By 2014, just months into his new administration after being elected as UCI president the previous fall, Cookson decided it was time to close the loophole and insist that all TUE requests go through a three-member review panel.

a favored asthma treatment, was taken off the banned list in 2010. The number of TUEs dropped from 97 in 2010 to 30 in 2013.

By 2015, only 15 TUEs were issued during the entire racing season. Cookson also insisted the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation, founded in 2008 to run anti-doping controls, is more independent than ever, and operates as an stand-alone operation rather than under the UCI’s legal department"

Source Velonews.

 

[coldash]

That was done by Brian Cookson

"By 2014, just months into his new administration after being elected as UCI president the previous fall, Cookson decided it was time to close the loophole and insist that all TUE requests go through a three-member review panel.

a favored asthma treatment, was taken off the banned list in 2010. The number of TUEs dropped from 97 in 2010 to 30 in 2013.

By 2015, only 15 TUEs were issued during the entire racing season. Cookson also insisted the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation, founded in 2008 to run anti-doping controls, is more independent than ever, and operates as an stand-alone operation rather than under the UCI’s legal department"

Source Velonews.

Fair point but there is always a “who guards the guards” aspect that may drive a demand for full disclosure

 

[Siclo]

That was done by Brian Cookson

"<snip>

By 2015, only 15 TUEs were issued during the entire racing season.

<snip>"

Source Velonews.

Lies, damn lies and.....

It's clearly absolute garbage since that number would not even cover the novo nordisk team, every member of which needs a genuine TUE.

In fact it I believe it refers to the number of TUE's issued by the UCI, it does not cover TUE's that are issued by national governing bodies.

 

[lyn1]

Lies, damn lies and.....

It's clearly absolute garbage since that number would not even cover the novo nordisk team, every member of which needs a genuine TUE.

In fact it I believe it refers to the number of TUE's issued by the UCI, it does not cover TUE's that are issued by national governing bodies.

That's correct, although riders who are in the Registered Testing Programme (RTP) have to apply direct to the UCI via ADAMS, so would be the ones in the UCI figures. This would include the riders/teams that most of the discussions on this section of the forum focus on ie World Tour and Pro Conti level men. (it also includes other groups). Not sure how NN team works as presumably they would need a permanent TUE, rather than one for an isolated or occasional issue.
The National Feds are supposed to deal with applications from "lower level" riders who are not on the RTP at the time they apply, so those riders would rarely be the focus of threads on this forum.

 

[Siclo]

That's correct, although riders who are in the Registered Testing Programme (RTP) have to apply direct to the UCI via ADAMS, so would be the ones in the UCI figures. This would include the riders/teams that most of the discussions on this section of the forum focus on ie World Tour and Pro Conti level men. (it also includes other groups). Not sure how NN team works as presumably they would need a permanent TUE, rather than one for an isolated or occasional issue.
The National Feds are supposed to deal with applications from "lower level" riders who are not on the RTP at the time they apply, so those riders would rarely be the focus of threads on this forum.

Which leads to the obvious question of what is this mechanism? Who else is using it and what for? If scuttlebutt is to be believed there are likely to be lot of permanent TUEs required for thyroid meds if and when WADA get around to banning them.