Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[DCLane]

I'm currently sat outside the National Cycling Centre in Manchester *. Normally there's a few BC staff/riders milling about: today it's deserted.

There's a bored camera crew but no-one from BC in evidence.


* not loitering with intent: my 13yo's racing later and we're eating cottage pie.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5172827, member: 45"]I suppose that something giving you an unfair advantage isn't, well, fair. Is it?[/QUOTE]
I'm confused: which is unfair? Is it an unfair advantage to take a medication you've a legitimate reason to take because it's expected to help your performance? Or is it an unfair advantage for others if you're denied treatment for a lethal condition because it will also improve performance?

Ultimately, deferring death is the ultimate performance benefit, isn't it? Ain't many races won by competitors who already died.

Personally, I think the ethical line is crossed when someone takes something to treat no illness, but that's not where it was drawn in the earlier post.

 

[Paulus]

Strange isn't it, our politicians can't sort the NHS out, can't properly fund the police, can't fathom brexit, can't muster the energy to figure out the teacher shortage, can't solve corrupted corporate pension scandals, can't resolve our new found requirement for food banks....But they (seemingly without evidence) know for sure Wiggo was juicing.... Top notch that... Almost like they're diverting attention from other issues or something

It may be a select committee that has come out with this report, but actually they are pretty toothless to do any thing about it. it is just pontificating on something they know little about. They are not judges, but are acting as such.

 

[Daddy Pig]

OK, o wise one, what about "Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now but we expect it is reasonably likely to kill you sooner or later if left untreated. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today and which will improve your performance today" - which side of the line is that to you?

If Need has a medical record of asthma and hay fever etc then that should be on his medical records, if he would like to share...
This drug like asthma inhalers would help to put you on a level playing field if you so needed it. Playing sport etc in the summer with Hay fever which affects asthma is a real sod... personally I would take what the hell I could to help me... if that was a legitimate problem.

 

[Tin Pot]

There is no point arguing morality.

You build a set of rules that people agree to, are easy to implement, and easy to detect breaches.

That means accepting that something’s can’t be enforced effectively, and making the playing field level by allowing it.

Everything else is a waste of time.

 

[Tin Pot]

[QUOTE 5172851, member: 45"]Others may be arguing, some of us are discussing.[/QUOTE]

By responding to only one statement and uniting the others? I think not.

 

[BalkanExpress]

Surely Tommy Godwin is cycling's Godwin...

No he’s not..but, Tommy Godwin is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Godwin_(cyclist,_born_1912)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Godwin_(cyclist,_born_1920)

 

[david k]

I wonder is there should be an ethical line at all in sport - sure it is against the rules and regulations or not. Having a grey area of ethics does not help anybody on either side of the mythical line.

I wish it was that simple. The intent is to ensure no unfair advantage is gained. If someone takes a substance that has been agreed to cure a health issue therefore ensuring a level playing field it's fine. If it's taken to gain an unfair advantage it isn't. The claim is that Wiggins took the substance under the guise of needing it for a legitimate cause but really it was to enhance performance.

My issue with that is surely only Wiggins knows if he legitimately needed it? Only he knows the true intent. If the correct procedures were followed we have to accept it was done with the true intent. If the powers doubt the true nature they should change the rules.

 

[david k]

The issue will always be, where is the line? When is a drug performance enhancing and when isn't it? Is a multi vitamin helpful, enhances recovery, protien shakes etc? Is a pain killer acceptable for someone with a small injury but not someone trying to stop the regular pain of performance?

Many people look down their nose at people who have taken 'drugs' but will happily take caffeine and pain killers etc to go to work with a hangover, often these drinks or meds would be well over the limit for some sports, not the dirty drug taker people think they are.

 

[Milkfloat]

[QUOTE 5172791, member: 45"]Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication, which is legal to take and which will counter that impairment today.


----------------------------------------------------------------ethical line-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Mr Sportsman, you have a condition which is not impairing your performance right now. Here's some medication for that condition, which is legal to take, and which will improve your performance today.[/QUOTE]

Is this medication against the rules or not. If not are we banning coffee and vitamin C?

 

[Milzy]

I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it. I'm prepared to believe he needed asthma meds of some sort. What is in great doubt is whether triamcinolone was an appropriate choice. We have a professor of respiratory medicine describing its choice as an asthma treatment as "bonkers", and we have first hand evidence from an ex pro of its efficacy as a PED.

I'm sure plenty of people in Sky knew the true intent. One of them (Sutton) has stated it explicitly.

I always thought it was just an antinflamatery? Great for tennis elbow, bad joints etc. Good for dulling the pain of an injury maybe but it’s not exactly the hot sauce is it??

 

[mjr]

Wiggins on BBC 1 news at ten now.

 

[smutchin]

I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it.

It's plausible that Wiggins didn't know what he was being given or why, only following doctor's orders. I'm prepared to accept that he has been used wrongly by the team.

However, he still lied about having a needle stuck in his arse. And he can't pretend he didn't know that was wrong because he states quite clearly in his book that needles are a no-no.

Riders do need to take some personal responsibility for what goes in their body – and how.

 

[david k]

I don't think it's the case that only BW knows if he needed it. I'm prepared to believe he needed asthma meds of some sort. What is in great doubt is whether triamcinolone was an appropriate choice. We have a professor of respiratory medicine describing its choice as an asthma treatment as "bonkers", and we have first hand evidence from an ex pro of its efficacy as a PED.

I'm sure plenty of people in Sky knew the true intent. One of them (Sutton) has stated it explicitly.

So maybe BW followed the legitimate path but team doctor prescribed something which would also give a performance enhancement? I doubt he wouldn't have known btw, just that it's plausible.

Are the gains from what they did significant? I feel the issue with cheating is more large scale systematic abuse like EPO not a publically available medication(assuming it is here) manipulated to give a slight advantage.

Do other sports ban the same substances?

 

[david k]

It's plausible that Wiggins didn't know what he was being given or why, only following doctor's orders. I'm prepared to accept that he has been used wrongly by the team.

However, he still lied about having a needle stuck in his arse. And he can't pretend he didn't know that was wrong because he states quite clearly in his book that needles are a no-no.

Riders do need to take some personal responsibility for what goes in their body – and how.

What's the needle story, not heard this one, although not followed this closely lately