Yet those aren't "the rules."

Athletes forego their privacy to a designated body, not the public. The idea that if you chose to be an athlete you forego certain liberties is absolutely false. Under the current system, athletes are afforded that privacy, and for good reason. Another iteration of this argument is if they have nothing to hide, why should they object? Or, if you have nothing to hide, why shouldn't law enforcement just wander in whenever they want and go through your possessions? Nothing to hide, right? It's an absolutely fallacious argument.

It is being proposed from the point of view that being a professional athlete is somehow a privileged, easy ride. Making that argument smacks of rancour and jealousy. Becoming a professional athlete is not some Faustian bargain. The rules cover everyone, from the 0.001% who become household names to the swollen ranks of journey men professional athletes scraping by.

Tighten the requirements of the TUE system.

Your initial comment was taken to mean that we are making something out of nothing by setting an arbitrary bar, but that is misconstruing the fact on the ground. The bar was not set by the public and is rather the doing of Sky all along. The public didn't require that they implement a no-needle policy, and it was Wiggo himself who a) asserted in interviews and in his autobiography that he has a no needle policy and b) lamented about the lax reinforcement of a no-needles policy at the Dauphinee. Now that he's found to be duplicitous in his original claim aimed at reassuring the public, should it just be hushed up?

yes, "we" the public are calling it out, but we the public also didn't require or want their publicity spiel in the first place. That spiel is their way of saying "trust us on this, we promise," and it's not stated in a vacuum but rather with the intent to assuage.

 
Looks dope to me....

---

http://www.sweat7.com
Facebook Page: Sweat7
Twitter: @sweat7coaching

I think, as others have said, that what has been published it outside of the letter of the rules. In other words, I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that just because they ostensibly followed the TUE procedure that everything is kosher. I think it's clear that, as regards some of the more subjective clauses within the TUE requirements, they violated the specific letter of those rules.

As far as whether or not they ALSO took something for which you cannot get a TUE, I don't really think that matters. But it wouldn't surprise me either way. With the TUE process so easily abused, why bother risking it? But, if you are going to break some of WADA's rules, why would you care about breaking more of them?

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I largely agree with your point, but I don't think this is entirely true. The resources of Sky, I presume, have the expertise to produce an exquisitely documented, "air-tight" TUE that would make it difficult for UKAD/WADA to challenge on a medical basis.

So in that sense it's probably easier for Sky's premier GC rider to get a TUE for a long-duration injected corticosteroid than it is for trail. I could probably get my Dr. to prescribe one easily, but he wouldn't want to take the time to write up a 25-page medical history documenting my "asthma," history of treatment, and the set of conditions that clearly indicate that no other treatment than this particular injected drug would be medically sufficient.

On paper the rules are the same. In practice there are differences.

From Wiggins himself on how they got TUE.

“It was prescribed for allergies and respiratory problems,” Wiggins told BBC1 in an interview that will be aired Sunday. “I’ve been a lifelong sufferer of asthma and I went to my team doctor at the time and we went in turn to a specialist to see if there’s anything else we could do to cure these problems. And he in turn said: ‘Yeah, there’s something you can do but you’re going to need authorization from cycling’s governing body [the UCI].'”
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/...#2XyZAmsFo8GmEt1V.99

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

exactly. in itself, taking what seems to be a massive overkill medication that would not normally be prescribed for allergies is dubious at best. it is possible though that wiggins had tried everything else with no success and finally found something that actually worked for him.
the problem is he is on record as saying he never got injections other than vaccinations and the occasional saline drip and now we know that is untrue. not just saying that but making a point of it as evidence of how completely clean he is. so he is certainly a liar and that sort of manipulation of the truth is particularly suspicious given the background here.

personally i'm not that surprised as sky have a history of pushing the boundaries in any way they can, it is disappointing though

I totally support this. I think this simple step would go a long way towards addressing a complex issue. Public records of TUEs would force athletes to self-police or risk the ire of fans and even sponsors.

---

CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications

This sounds like a horse poop answer to me.

If this drug is so powerful, why is it not banned outright? No TUE. Period.

I think most of these guys still cheat (I consider abusing the TUE process cheating, which I believe this is). How hard would it be for him to find a doc to do this? Not very. The Sky narrative has always been way too similar to USPS. Some good, and so-so riders become top tier with great coaching and tactics...

---

Brian

It's more what big business and money can do for you. And of course what's their response to the issue?

"Oh what we are doing is technically legal...so yeah, we are clear".

Sky pushing it's money muscle around. Cool story, Sky. You "technically" haven't cheated! Yay! You are doing it right!

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

It is banned outright in-competition*. There is a theoretical exemption for EVERY medicine on the banned list with a convincing enough TUE. EPO is a prime case. Had WADA existed at the time, Lance would have needed a TUE in order to take EPO during his cancer treatment. 99% of the substances on the banned list are pharmacological interventions designed to treat legitimate medical complications. One of the common stimulants that track & field sprinters get popped for is a narcolepsy medication. Simone Biles taking Adderall is a very relevant case here - both in terms of legitimate use as well as abuse. Testosterone TUEs are very hard to get, and yet there are certainly athletes - though likely few elites - who would qualify for one. There's almost nothing that "no way, no how, no TUE." The issue is just how robust the TUE process is. Is it believable, for instance, that Serena Williams suffers from Sjogren's Syndrome? I'm very skeptical. And of course there is the definition of "suffers." Illness typically exists on a spectrum. So who gets to decide how severe is severe enough to warrant intervention? And this is where that oft-used refrain, "it wasn't to gain an advantage; it was just to bring them up/back to 'normal' levels."

What exactly does the word "normal" mean in the context of totally abnormal physical pursuits. There's nothing normal about running a 2:05ish marathon, so who gets to decide what defines normal within that context? What exactly is "normal" when it comes to racing a grand tour?

The other thing to remember is that "so powerful" is highly relative. Michael Phelps won the 200 butterfly by 0.01seconds over a race lasting just under two minutes. Even 1% is a MASSIVE advantage.

*The reason for certain substances being banned in competition vs out of competition is very debatable. For instance, clenbuterol is considered an anabolic and is banned at all times. But several of the corticosteroids that athletes are getting TUEs for have *similar* effects and yet are legal OOC and only banned IC.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

If that's how the best team in cycling wants to do it, cool. But it won't do itself or the sport any favors.

It just looks bad. But I don't even know if they care, they are doing it the "right" way for how they want to do it apparently.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Except they didn't break WADA's rules re: the TUE.

Again, not defending Wiggins or saying he didn't game the system, but if wea re gonna make the argument that he essentially doped, we should make sure we have the facts straight.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Interesting since the TUE says it is for an allergy to grass and pollen, not for asthma.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I agree that disclosing TUEs is the simplest, most straightforward step. Medical privacy, my ass. Nobody is saying you have to have your entire medical history disclosed, like that time you got VD on shore leave back in the service or how many fertility treatments it took for your old lady to get knocked up. The whole concept of a TUE is specific to elite-level sanctioned athletic competition, so it only exists in and of that context. If you want to play in that particular sandbox, you have to disclose that particular subset of your medical info and that is all; no more, no less. All the rest of your 'normal' medical history can remain privileged just like the rest of us 'normal' schmucks that don't ever cross WADA's radar.

Wiggins is lying again.

Dr. Zorzoli at the UCI signed off on one of Wiggins' TUEs on 6/30/2011. WIggins' specialist examination was on 7/2/2011.

That is a neat trick. Sky's marginal gains must include Dr. Who's TARDIS..

That's where I disagree.


from: https://www.wada-ama.org/...emption-tue#item-726

I would say that #1, #2, & #3 are all very questionable - or demonstrably false - in the case of Wiggins. In my *OPINION*, Wiggins did NOT meet all four requirements, and yet he was granted a TUE anyway. Now, you could say that the TUE system is broken or easily gamed or whatever. But fundamentally, the rules are pretty clear. At least in how they are written. That the rules are not actually enforced with that same clarity is disappointing. But that does not absolve a party who breaks the rules of breaking them.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

To be fair to Wiggo triamcinolone acetonide would be a common alternative if other drugs have not worked and he is trying to ensure no issues before a big race. If you are a life long asthmatic and already having allergic issues this might be the best method to ensure no severe asthma issues, in fact this drug is used often as a drug to prevent asthma attacks. I would argue the weight loss claims as dubious when examining current literature. Futhermore, this will suppress his immune system, not something you want to be doing regularly. In fact i think this will play around with your amino acids and actually cause muscle wasting in long term use.

Setting aside the clinical need for one second or the efficacy of the treatment chosen

Brad and Dave made it a point of fact that they did not indulge in needles - to the extend that other than vaccinations or drips they did not use them

He said himself that he had not missed a day going in to the 2012 tour but then said he'd had this breathing problem, which apparently was not sufficient enough to stop him from not missing a day

BUT - and this is the worst F**king part of the whole debacle - he either has the same symptoms just before his next two big races in 13 and 14, or they chose to administer the drug as a prophylactic measure

They can not have it both ways - this is irrespective of whether the drug was needed - they can not on the one hand say that they've not engaged in the use of medications through needles, then in the next breath explain that "well, on these three occasions we actually go a TUE, the first time because he was sick, the next two just in case"

None of this reflects well on either of them, even more so now its become / becoming apparent that team members and management were unaware of this.

As to its effectiveness - I've no idea - but I also suspect that at the very start of the EPO epidemic, data on its effectiveness was both limited in volume and quality for any assessment of EPO's benefit to cyclists to be known - this may be the same

Wiggins and Brailsford have a PR problem - Britains most successful olympian now has an asterisk next to his one grand tour one, and his manager has now reinforced the skepticism that every other track and road team has held about Sky from the outset.

Sky will no longer be whiter than white - sky will be viewed as tainted and inconsistent in so far as whilst they've refused contracts to convicted dopers - they apparently have no issue with mis-representing their policies on needles or taking advantage of the WADA code

As someone pointed out earlier - the very fact the TUE was signed off before the consultant appointment with the specialist would suggest that the preferred course of action was know and a retrospective justification for it was all that they sought

I suspect that there are some team members in the south of france that will be having some very difficult conversations with the management team

Though the upside of this, is that at least we now know why no one has been able to find a whistle blower, or the smoking gun, because being smarter than the average alley cat, they do not have a team wide, systematic doping program in place, instead, what they have chosen to do, is on a case by case basis limited to a Dr, RIder and Brailsford make decisions about what medications to take. If it comes out that Geraint, or others had TUE's and these were approved in the same way I think we can determine that unlike USPS where there'd be team meetings about doping up, Brailsford learnt that they way not to get caught was to do it one on one..........

I am really f**king annoyed by this - sunlight is the best disinfectant and had Sky been as truly transparent as they always want to be seen as - this would never have happened

The final thing we have learnt is why Brailsford never signed up to the teams that wanted a doping code stronger than WADA's - had they at the time, Wiggins would never have been allowed to ride......

Hey Jordan, this is where it is not up to you, or I to decide if 1,2,3 were questionable. That's where the doc and those that grant the TUE to decide if that is the case. It's clear to ME that he was gaming the system, but he's totally legally allowed to do whatever gaming he and Sky want to do, in the context of the flimsy rules. That's the problem with any set of rules. Those searching for a competitive advantage will game them. While you are TTing by yourself to Hawi there will be 10 guys sitting within 12.00 to 12.01 meters of each other and when they go to 11.98, they will then take 14.99 seconds and take the full draft effect before sticking their front wheel in front of the next guy. All legal and nothing wrong with it according to the rules. If you make the draft box 20m guys will do what they can at 20m. If you make the TUE system tighter there will be guys doing everything they can inside the new "tighter" system to get any legal advantage they can.

To Andrewmc, I don't think there will be any asterisk in British public's minds about Wiggo. People are very nationalistic and just as competitive about their champions as athletes themselves are. It's gonna be something like, "hey screw off you silly Americans/Italians/Spaniards/Germans....sure our champion went to the limit but he didn't cross it like Lance, Basso, Contador and Ullrich.....he was totally legal in his wins so it's all sour grapes. You guys are just jealous cause you can't beat us fair and square"....and so it goes. People are very possessive about their champions and if their champions did everything "fair and square" they will be embraced for doing what is needed to win in their competition.

We just have a higher bar as athletes. I don't think the general public does.....for crying out loud, my wife was defending Gatlin at the olympics.....she could not understand my disdain....it was like "Dev, stop it, the guy did his suspension and he's racing clean since he's not testing positive". WTF? I just shut up and watched, because the IOC/WADA etc etc etc has the general public believing that it's all clean stuff going on. It's good for selling sponsors.

I actually think that at least the more informed British cycling public will feel they've been misled on this. Most people I know who actually follow cycling (as opposed to just tuning into the Olympics every 4 years and cheering on anybody in a GB top) are, if not exactly shocked, then somewhat disillusioned. There's a fair few Brits on this thread as well, and nobody is exactly making a robust defence of Wiggins. The best spin you can put on this would be that they didn't break the rules.

Britain generally has a pretty negative view on dopers, we're not typically big on second chances or rehabilitation. The likes of Christie and Chambers are persona non grata. Millar's reinvention of himself as an anti-doping crusader has been a lot more successful in the US than in the UK, where a lot of people still don't like him. Armitstead's missed doping tests attracted a lot of criticism. And although the British Media has to be careful what they print because of libel laws, there are plenty of critical articles going around at the moment. I think Wiggins is somewhat tainted now in a lot of people's eyes. I don't think Sky are irredeemably tainted yet, but they've certainly lost a lot of fans and are going to have to do a lot better than "we didn't break any rules" if they want to get people back onside. Brailsford has now said he wasn't aware of triamcinolone's use as a doping drug - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...y-wigginss-tue---it/. I guess that's just about plausible (I ran a search for it in the Slowtwitch knowledge base and up until the last week it only cropped up a few times and never in connection with professional dopers that I could see), but if true then in light of his new knowledge I'd expect him to make changes in how Sky treat the TUE process in future, rather than insisting that in the same situation he'd do the same thing again.

It will be interesting to see if there are more Sky TUEs revealed. Froome's TUEs look more innocuous and were already in the public domain. If it stops there it might not be too bad. If it turns out that pretty much the whole Sky TdF squad has been suffering from hayfever, allergies and asthma then I think there'd be serious repercussions - sponsors pulling out, senior management being fired, etc.

I would still draw a big distinction between the current scandal and previous doping scandals. Teams who are willing to do whatever they can get away with while at least following the rules and leaving an official paper trail, are still a lot better than teams who completely ignore the rules and just do whatever they can get away with without being caught.

I think when you have David Walsh - arguably the biggest DB / Team Sky fanboy - stating that in light of the clinical opinions proffered this does not look good, you know Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky have a problem

Most of the public could not give two monkeys about this but I suspect that Wiggins and Brailsford value the opinion of the cycling community and their peers rather more than that of the Xmas book market and this has harmed them

If it turns out that Dave B sat in rooms with cyclists on the team and discussed providing prophylactic medications - that happen to PED's - to a number of other riders and his senior management team, and the other riders did not know, he's finished..........

I would not underestimate the contempt with which that will be held. I think even his interview was poor:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/26/sir-dave-brailsford-stout-defence-team-sky-bradley-wiggins


he wont look at improving the health of the rider but has somehow ended up giving the same drug three years in a row in the days running up to their A race.......


seriously what are the odds that BW always presents with the same symptoms in advance of the one big race a year, three years in a row.......


this looks poor

A slightly different approach from Callum Skinner - releasing his medical records showing he had asthma from childhood.
http://www.scotsman.com/...ing-hacked-1-4241055

From Froomes Twitter
https://twitter.com/...serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

no coded message or sub-text there............move on.........