1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Froome and Wiggins TUEs

Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by Joffey, 15 Sep 2016.

  1. I'm imagining teams secretly launching angry bees at their riders from their team cars in order to justify a mega-dose of Wasp-Eze. :smile:
    Illaveago likes this.
  2. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    Did it require treatment with a PED or is it just that the treatment hospitals use is one that's a PED? Choices may be limited... but maybe at World Tour level, there's a strong argument that team doctors should be carrying the preferred medication for any riders with known allergies so there should be no second TUE for an in-race case.
  3. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    Does anyone really think that's the only risk? I suspect that idea would fark over a lot of paralympians - but hey, survival of the fittest and no-one with any treatable chronic illness should even think of athletic competition. How about we send them all to camps(?) :crazy:
    Slick likes this.
  4. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    I'm fairly sure I remember reading of riders in the 1990s allegedly doing silly stuff like walking into walls or injuring each other in attempts to cause not-very-cycling-impairing injuries so they'd have an arguable medical reason for a steroid shot, but I don't remember whose book it was.
    Dogtrousers likes this.
  5. I'm not sure I agree with the extreme anti-TUE view. I understand it, and sympathise a bit, but I think it risks over-reacting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    Sure, at the one extreme we have Lance and his backdated "saddle sore" TUE to cover up steroid use. But there are also athletes such as Laura Trott with well documented childhood breathing problems who are able to compete when using medication that, by all reports, offers little or nothing in the way of performance enhancement other than removing the original problem. Further, athletes are people too, and they may reasonably require treatment out of competition with restricted substances, and they have a perfect right to medical confidentiality.
  6. jowwy

    jowwy The bearded Powerhouse

    how would they know if its false pretences when the UCI would need medical evidence to sign it off?? just asking questions here
  7. Milkfloat

    Milkfloat Veteran

    I agree with @Dogtrousers , I am not anti-TUE, I am anti the teams doctors and UCI having control over it. If a TUE is needed then it should be an independent body (WADA?) who investigate and grant/deny it.
    Dogtrousers likes this.
  8. Bollo

    Bollo Chaaaaaa!

    That's hyperbole and you know it (and an indirect invocation of Godwin. And I don't like the inference). So, how do you deal with Oscar Pistorius' bid to run in the Olympics? At what point does his prosthesis cease to compensate for a disability and start to become an enhancement? And the converse - should Caster Semenya have to take hormones to be allowed to compete in women's races? The answer is that there are no simple answers, only decisions and consequences.

    I'm quite happy to argue the other approach where we have a list of proscribed or restricted medicines. Outside that riders are free to take what the hell they want. I don't actually care that much, because I don't look to sports-people for validation or moral guidance.
  9. smutchin

    smutchin Cat 6 Racer

    The Red Enclave
    The system hasn't been rigorously policed in the past - it's largely a case of self-reporting. If the team doctor says the rider needs the meds, the UCI doctor will sign off the TUE without asking too many questions. Given the findings of the DCMS committee, UKAD may well decide to open an investigation into Wiggo's TUEs - and Lappartient is talking about getting the CDAF to investigate as well. I don't know how they would prove it, but if there are grounds to suspect wrongdoing, it should be investigated at least.

    In some cases in the past, such as Lance's infamous saddle sore as mentioned by @Dogtrousers, evidence has surfaced of active complicity by the UCI to bend the rules. I don't think Lappartient would countenance anything like that, to be fair, but it's clear that the TUE system still needs further reforms to prevent potential abuse by teams.

    I agree with @Milkfloat that any requests for TUEs should be investigated by an independent doctor, not a team employee, and preferably not a UCI employee either. In fact, I think I already said something similar upthread. Such measures would, however, be costly to implement.
    Bollo likes this.
  10. jowwy

    jowwy The bearded Powerhouse

    so unless this has changed recently, this is what is required to get a TUE

    TUEs related to beta-2 agonist medication to treat asthma
    Inhaled beta-2 agonists are prohibited at all times and require a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE), except for:

    • i. inhaled salbutamol when taken in dosages of less than 800 micrograms in any 12 hour period
    • ii. inhaled formoterol when taken in dosages of less than 54 micrograms in any 24 hour period
    • iii. inhaled salmeterol when taken in dosages of less than 200 micrograms in any 24 hour period
    Inhaled terbutaline and inhaled indacterol are prohibited when taken in any dose and therefore require a TUE.

    The following documentation is required to support a TUE application related to the use of prohibited beta-2 agonist medication to treat asthma:

    • A complete and legible beta-2 agonist TUE application form
    • Lung function test results
    • Justification from the prescribing physician as to why permitted alternatives cannot be used
    Athletes should check Global DRO for confirmation about the prohibited or permitted status of their asthma medication.

    Standard TUE
    For all other substances and methods, a standard TUE form is required.
    The following medical evidence is required:

    • History of medical condition
    • Evidence of diagnosis (such as hospital review letters, test results, examinations and investigations)
    • Evidence of using alternative permitted medications


    So is that not enough evidence to get a TUE or do you think they should provide more? if so what?
  11. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    Well, I didn't like the implication of almost any chronic condition getting riders disqualified. That felt like the view you were heading towards, that sport is only for the superhumans (in the old sense of the word).

    I don't know and I think that's a much more difficult decision than a normally non-enhancing chronic illness treatment like salbutamol or even a one-off PED shot or tablet by A&E for a bee sting, so I'm surprised if you don't see prosthetic limbs as justifying a ban.

    It's not that I look to sports-people for validation or moral guidance, but more that I do care about whether people with chronic conditions are demonised.
  12. smutchin

    smutchin Cat 6 Racer

    The Red Enclave
    In the case of Wiggins and the triamcinolone, it all hangs on the "evidence of diagnosis". If the diagnosis is made by the team doctor, what safeguards are in place to prevent fabrication of evidence? How stringent were the UCI in checking that evidence? These are the questions that an investigation would address.

    This is why I think the diagnosis should be made by an independent doctor.
  13. Maenchi

    Maenchi StoneDog

    If the case hangs on team Sky's behaviour being found unethical, is 'hacking' not unethical being the digital equivalent of breaking and entering and then stealing.
    Seems that if the 'fancy bears' find stuff big enough that get's overlooked,( just a passing thought):cuppa:
  14. jowwy

    jowwy The bearded Powerhouse

    again proof of fabrication would be very hard to come by, especially as it states hospital review letters, test results (lung function) etc etc and again if the UCI signed all that off, how could you then call it cheating/fabricating whatever name people want to give it................theres too many grey areas and speculation here and if people want to put an asterix in their own head against wiggins tdf win, olympic medals yadda yadda yadda, then thats upto them......

    but i cant see anything further coming from this at all and what would be the point????
    Dogtrousers likes this.
  15. Bollo

    Bollo Chaaaaaa!

    When have I said that sport isn't for everyone!? But, by definition, sports at the elite level are performed by elite athletes and ultimately the whole point at that level is to determine which athlete has the greatest ability, be it through high VO2, lactic acid tolerance or longer legs. That's not eugenics, it's .... errr .... professional sport.

    The use of prosthetic limbs has been banned, at least when competing against non-para-athletes - see my previous comment - because there was no systematic method to ensure fairness. And that's where we are with the current case. As it stands there are legal mechanisms to game a competitive disadvantage (one leg -> asthma) into a competitive advantage (extra-springy blade -> asthma drugs with known or suspected PE properties).

    You took issue when I suggested effectively abolishing TUEs and banning the drugs that they covered. I'd be equally happy abolishing TUEs and allowing any rider to take the same drugs. At least it would end this moral indignation and dissembling.