Sky - gaming the system?

[jsabine]

Are you drawing a distinction between 'fine' and 'within the rules'?

[Henryk531]

If you are not fit for work you stay at home-problem solved.



Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

[Samuel D]

It is exceptionally unfair to Wiggins to say that he shouldn’t merely have operated within the rules but according to some – unspecified! – higher moral standard.

Going down this route quickly becomes farcical, too. What is moral racing? Should cyclists be allowed to take strong painkillers? What about caffeine? What about surprisingly large quantities of beetroot juice? Perhaps a moral racer should eat chips and drink lager – unless he’s from Japan when he should eat sushi and drink sake? Why should pale-skinned riders be allowed sunscreen?

As for the dopers who’ve come out of the woodwork to throw stones: they have a vested interest in calling others dopers, because it makes them seem not to be uniquely heinous human beings. Yes, they cheated – “but, look, so does everyone!”

Although I think their doping crimes are not as grave as popularly imagined, they should not be given time of day on this topic. And the BBC and other media outlets should be ashamed of themselves for giving them a platform to air their innuendo.

Which brings me to another point. The media has not figured out a sensible way to report on cycling. They were duped by dopers so many times in the last 20 years that they overreacted and are now afraid to report a great cycling achievement as a straightforwardly great feat. Instead, they throw in question marks as willingly as someone at the pub. This is poor journalism, to put it mildly.

I happen to think that Wiggins did nothing outside the rules. So do most of you, which is why even those casting aspersions are so reluctant to say he should be stripped of his Tour win. Operating within the rules is all that can sensibly be expected of a professional racer.

The question of whether the rules are fit for purpose is a reasonable one but not something for Wiggins to worry about unless he chooses to.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Therapeutic Use Exemptions are explicitly intended to be normal medical treatments for illness, etc., not performance-enhancing doping. Doping under a false TUE is doping.

Wiggo has repeatedly used a drug for performance-enhancing purposes that normally would not be issued to a fit, healthy athlete. Doctors have said that this drug would normally be given to somebody in a hospital bed.

[Samuel D]

But there is no such thing as a false TUE. A TUE is either granted or not, and the decision is made according to a binding set of published rules, with the unanimous agreement of three independent doctors, etc.

You clearly take a different view than the sporting establishment on how far asthma treatment should go. It’s not unreasonable to take your view, but neither is the sporting establishment’s position unreasonable. After all, it was adopted at the behest of lots of clever people – doctors, lawyers, team directors, sponsors, and many other stakeholders including the racers themselves.

It remains the case that it’s unreasonable to lay any fault of the system at Wiggins’s feet.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Check the dates of Wiggo's TUEs. TUEs often only needed one doctor's approval back then. One doctor who publicly stated that some TUEs were for performance enhancement. Shall we talk about favouritism again?

[Cudzoziemiec]

As ESL said back there, "marginal gains". It would be disappointing if Sky had not used every legal means possible.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Dope testers and riders were noting a surge in older doping methods like steroids about five years ago but not finding positives in dope tests. Remember that using cortisone out of competition doesn't require a TUE and isn't tested for. Then have a think about the following:

TUE applications need to meet all of the following criteria before a TUE will be granted:

• The rider would experience significant health problems without taking the prohibited substance or method

• The therapeutic use of the substance would not produce enhancement of performance

• There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative

• Use of the prohibited substance or method is not needed because of previous doping.

The following evidence is needed to support a TUE application:

• Medical history

• An accurate diagnosis. For chronic conditions, up-to-date review letters that confirm treatment monitoring should be provided.

• Alternatives have been considered or trialled.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I think they should ban training. It has been proven to enhance performance, and that obviously is gaming the system.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Don't laugh but back in the halcyon days of Victorian England, gentlemen often didn't want to compete with those who had to work for a living because their manual labouring was an unfair advantage. Obviously, no real gentleman would consider training for a competition, relying instead purely on natural ability.

[DrMekon]

I thought that Sky were keen on the aggregation of marginal gains. I'd have been surprised if they didn't push the rules as far as they would go.

This.

I've set PBs on my commute with an upper respiratory tract infection, but on prednisolone. What Brad was having injected is stronger. I've seen my peak flow leap 50l/min on pred. You feel like you are in beast mode. I have about a month's supply at home. I take them in my saddlebag on audax in case of difficulties - they are a get out of jail free card. My sis took some because she was feeling rough on The Old 240. She  was going slow - my HR was at 105 before she took them. Half an hour later, it was at 145bpm.

I'd love to have seen Brad's numbers before and after levelling the playing field.

[Exit Stage Left]

Brian Cookson, the UCI President, was voicing concerns about TUEs a couple of years ago.

The UCI has come under fire in recent week concerning a Therapeutic Use Exemption given to Tour de France winner Chris Froome and the delays in Roman Kreuziger's UCI Biological Passport case. Cookson refused to go into specific details of Kreuziger's on-going case but confirmed that more will be done to improve the governance of TUEs, starting with better rules on how TUEs are permitted. He said the general ethics of the sport will come before a single rider's needs to use a specific banned medicine to stay in a race.

"There was a TUE Committee but it was only being used for exceptional cases. This was an entirely routine case and Dr Zorzoli approved it, as WADA confirmed two days later," he said justifying why Zorzoli was able to fast-track Froome's TUE during the Tour de Romandie.

"We've looked at how we canmake that process stronger. We've got a TUE committee and we will now use that Committee more. We'll use it for every TUE case. That may slow the process what's more important? An individual rider or the integrity of an entire sport? Frankly in my view, it's the integrity and reputation of the entire sport."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/cookson-on-his-sons-role-at-team-sky-zorzoli-and-froomes-tue/

In the same article he addressed the state of professional cycling in Germany.

He is convinced that the same growth and success for cycling can be replicated and rediscovered in different countries, including Germany, which while being a cycling nation, has largely turned its back on professional racing.

"A lot of people are working hard behind the scenes to do some good work in Germany, that includes the Federation and some race promoters, people are working to put teams together too. I had a meeting in Germany yesterday. I can’t reveal any details but the picture is beginning to turn because of the problems of that era. Germany is the biggest economy in Europe and if we're not in Germany as a sport, we're going to suffer. I think we can get back in and the signs are there. As long as we keep our act together and don’t descend into the problems of the past, I'm optimistic that cycling can be strong again there and in other countries.”

Cookson clearly means doping when he talks about 'the problems of the past’.

You could argue that the current revelations are useful in working towards greater transparency. The problem boils down to how many of the UK recruits to cycling will move onto something else if the image of the sport is tarnished by a sense of betrayal, and how that will impact on Sky's involvement.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Mention of Germany being "a cycling nation [which has] turned its back on professional racing" raises the connection, or lack of it, in the minds of the public at large and non-racing cyclists, between cycling and sport. Clearly in the UK it's strong, in countries like Germany with a transport cycling habit probably less so. So in Britain there might be fall out from a doping scandal not only on BC activities but audax etc and government funding for cycle facilities and so on. It also widens the question of what is cheating. If you take a substance which is banned by WADA but not in itself illegal to help you round an audax or a non-competitive club ride, is that cheating? Or to help you over the Alps on tour? After all, it happens!

[mattc]

This thread needs to be Godwinned:

(click to show/hide)

Germany is the biggest economy in Europe and if we're not in Germany as a sport, we're going to suffer. I think we can get back in and the signs are there. As long as we keep our act together and don’t descend into the problems of the past, I'm optimistic that cycling can be strong again there and in other countries.”

Cookson clearly means doping when he talks about 'the problems of the past’.

German problems in the past? I think he could be referring to something long before EPO!!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

No problems with people using all sorts of performance-enhancing things, provided they aren't taking part in competitive sports. Audax is accordingly off the hook. Interestingly, Audax Oz is part of Cycling Australia, the equivalent of British Cycling. Audax Oz members who don't race are specifically exempt from the drug testing regime of competitive cyclists.

[JBB]

I thought that Sky were keen on the aggregation of marginal gains. I'd have been surprised if they didn't push the rules as far as they would go.

This.

I've set PBs on my commute with an upper respiratory tract infection, but on prednisolone. What Brad was having injected is stronger. I've seen my peak flow leap 50l/min on pred. You feel like you are in beast mode. I have about a month's supply at home. I take them in my saddlebag on audax in case of difficulties - they are a get out of jail free card. My sis took some because she was feeling rough on The Old 240. She  was going slow - my HR was at 105 before she took them. Half an hour later, it was at 145bpm.

I'd love to have seen Brad's numbers before and after levelling the playing field.

Interesting. I've taken the stuff in the past for totally debilitating hay fever and, apart from being able to see breathe,hear and work I've never noticed any performance enhancement. I've still got some in the cupboard but can't remember what the dose was!

Fortunately my hay fever has declined to the point where I no longer need it.

Julia

[DrMekon]

I'm on 50mg a day during an exacerbation. I think Froome was on 40mg. Feel really strong on it.

[sojournermike]

I'm on 50mg a day during an exacerbation. I think Froome was on 40mg. Feel really strong on it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805102

[jamesld8]

A few odd points though that Wiggins / Sky don`t appear to have answered which given their `whiter than white` proclamations previously I would have hoped to have heard about

1. Why didn`t Wiggins make any reference to his asthma in his autobiography ? Froome has been open about getting bilharzia for example

2. Isn`t it a teeny weeny bit odd that he used the drugs, TUE or not, leading up to big GT rides, or was his asthma so selective that he needed the drug just then and there ?

3. Again given Sky`s whiter than white, within rule OK but maybe they should have  not been so clear in proclaiming their riders were clean, technically and legally maybe but morally?

4 and why is it just now that Brailsford is talking about changing their TUE policy? Sounds like having been, albeit morally , caught out they, just like so many politicians do are trying to make retrospective amends and hoping it will all go away. Which of course it won`t.

--and having just seen the Telegraph item that Brailsford didn`t know about the performance enhancing capabilities of drug that Wiggins use to me is a laughable defence, one of, if not the, top pro team mangers claiming ignorance of a TUE drug capabilities is just making it all seem now to be a giant cover up.

Again legal OK but morally ?? IMO no way, sorry Sky have been very ingenuous in this

Simple question, if at time of Wiggins TdeF  win Sky had been fully open about Wiggins using a TUE approved drug, but drug has known / reputed performance enhancing abilities would his victory have been met back in UK with such acclaim?

 For me too many doubts now about the `genuineness` of Wiggins results, within rules yes, morally highly dubious.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

A TUE requires the treatment to not enhance performance. The drug and methodology selected fails on that criteria (not the only one). I don't think these TUEs are within the rules. It looks like another example of official bodies tacitly accepting doping.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Or deciding that without doping there would be no sport? Or rather, no spectacle.

[DrMekon]

Looked up when treatment guidelines suggest the injection is appropriate for adults. It's for use when you've taken oral steroids religiously and your severe asthma still isn't controlled.

Sure, Brad has asthma. Poorly controlled despite taking steroids? I'm grinning at the ridiculousness of that. If Brad had severe uncontrolled asthma, he had no business racing.

Whether Brad had any insight in to the effects he could expect, I'm not sure. I suspect he just trusted his doctor.

[citoyen]

I don't think these TUEs are within the rules. It looks like another example of official bodies tacitly accepting doping.

It's a borderline case that hinges on whether you accept Wiggins and Brailsford's explanation that he was suffering from a pollen allergy in the build-up to the Tour in 2012 and was legitimately prescribed the drug by a consultant purely for medicinal reasons..

But then, as DrMekon says, you have to question why the doctor prescribed that particular medicine. Did Wiggins and Brailsford not question whether there were alternatives considering the requirement for a TUE and the fact that it is a known PED? Was the doctor using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, just to make absolutely sure Wiggins was fit for the Tour, or was there a more nefarious agenda?

And why did Wiggins lie about receiving injections?

Some have questioned why Sky didn't sign up to the MPCC, which has a no TUE policy, but the MPCC has shown on numerous occasions that it is far from bringing credibility to cycling, so that is a red herring as far as I'm concerned.

I'm still dissatisfied with Sky's explanations for covering up and lying about the TUE.

[Exit Stage Left]

I always felt that Wiggins' main problem was his nerves. Giving him an injection for a respiratory problem that might be linked to anxiety would stop him fixating on his breathing, and overdosing on inhalers.
Brailsford is unlikely to come out and say that dealing with Bradley's nerves was a nightmare. Brad is now the cool and flippant mod, but he never looked comfortable in yellow until the podium.

[Peter]

No grown man should be comfortable in yellow.