We part ways over the validity of the TUE.

Your view (I think - I don't want to put words in your mouth) is that he was given a TUE for exactly the drug that he used, and that therefore he didn't cheat. My view is that if he got the TUE under false pretenses, he cheated.

I've read a lot of claims that proper processes weren't followed: the exemption appears to have been granted before the medical examination in one instance, for example - and if those reports are accurate, they would speak to your point about the need to tighten the TUE standards and procedures. That's a worthwhile structural argument to have, but it's different to the question of whether or not BW (and others) cheated. If they don't suffer from the condition that they claim to, or if the drug that they're using to treat the condition isn't the most appropriate one, or the condition isn't as bad as they say it is, then they're cheating if they apply on the basis that they do/it is/it is etc. And that's not a letter/spirit argument - that's the letter of the law, per Rappstar's post.

The argument about whether he cheated isn't about whether the rules are too lax: it's about whether he followed the rules as they are written. Your argument (I think - words/mouth etc) is that he got the TUE, ipso facto he did follow the rules. The inconsistencies in his story make me question whether he did actually follow the rules, and the fact that he got the TUE doesn't speak to whether or not he was truthful in the context of his application. And if he wasn't truthful, then he cheated, in the same way that the fielder appealing for a catch that he knows has bounced cheated, whether or not the umpire calls the batter out.

I am saying he went in with a condition. I think it is fabricated, but I am not the medical doc, and I am not the one granting the TUE from the WADA side. Nor are you, nor are most of us on ST. You still need to have the system do its job or fix the system. In competitive endeavors the players always go to the limit. Just assume the worst of the players and consider it a bonus if they behave like choir boys.

We need legit medical people and legit sport officials to do their jobs. The rest of us on the internet can claim whatever we want that there were inconsistencies. Once it is proven definitively that the TUE was achieved in an invalid way and the medical and sport officials were loose with their application of professional responsibility and Wiggins should have never gotten a TUE, then we can say he cheated. Until then, since we are not the doc, nor the WADA guy he technically was clean.

The reason why I am saying this is not to protect Wiggins, but to actually protect athletes who properly and legally go through the process for legit reason. They are not cheaters, but we can have an internet court and just pretty well come up with anything we want about those who have TUEs and say they cheated.

Once it is proven that Wiggo got the TUE inappropriately then let's go full steam and strip him of the Tour de France win. I think it's going to be really hard to prove that in court though based on what I have read to date. It still smells really bad though. System needs tightening. I think, as Power13 and others suggested if all TUEs are made public, there will automatically be self policing and at that level of athletics and championship winning potential, privacy goes out the window. It should be a "cost to play"

It's never going to be proven wrong because it's impossible too. And as I said I don't need that to make my own judgment. But I'm also not interested in actually saying he is or isn't a doper.

What I'm interested in is fixing a system that is fucked up. That allows big money teams to find "specialists" to fix "problems" and get it covered.

And when someone acts in a shady manner, I'm going to call that action out. So I get why Sky asked for the TUE. He had allergies, that's there answer that they can sit on their perch and feel good about.

But I find it interesting that in all their early press conferences they were talking transparency and doing it right, and then this type of stuff comes out. Left and right hand aren't together on that team. And I as a coach and fan of the sport can certainly call that out. Just having a TUE doesn't make them immune from questioning that specific tactic.

Eta: actually they know exactly what they are doing. They are "legally" doping. Good on them. They worked the system. Big props!

---

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

We're aligned on everything you typed above. Power13 and I have just been trying to stress that they have not cheated that we know of "yet". Guys have come on here and say they cheated, but there is no real final proof or conclusion. Just pieces of evidence so far to suggest motives were very shady.

Lots of discussion here, but the short answer is 'yes'. Maybe not by the letter of the law/rules - but this behaviour is way too suspect to believe that it was 'simply' allergies (or whatever). They wanted to deliver this particular agent in/close to competition that is banned in that context and is tremendously performance-enhancing. They found the way to make that happened within the TUE rules. Ooookay, but *to me* doping is the intention of gaining an advantage by using materials and methods that are performace enhancing and not explicitly allowable. So, invent a designed steroid not on the banned list and use it? Doping. Create an excuse to use a substance that requires a TUE when you don't need *that* substance to resolve your medical issue? Doping. Put a motor in your seatpost and use it to help your progress? Doping.

And given Sky's (and BW's) explicit 'no needles / no doping' stance, well - why haven't we heard the justification for the TUE based on the inability to be accommodated using other approaches as per the rules. Bleh. Rotten. Raises red flags for other Sky riders. Needs to be investigated with the aim to amend the TUE procedures and minimize loopholes.

Maybe disclosure of TUEs is not enough (although this is a very powerful, important step). Maybe the drug taken using TUE should be indicated on the jersey during the event. 'Ah, yes, there goes BW again, slaying everyone up the Ventoux. Of course, we can all see that he's on triamcinolone. We have Dr. Smith here to provide some color commentary on the effects of triamcinolone. Dr. Smith, do you think that this TUE provides BW an advantage?'

No the hell with an investigation.

I don't need an internal UCI investigation to tell me that their decision was on the up and up, wink wink.

This particular decision is done. He's clean. Good on him and Sky for pulling a fast on us.

---

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

I seriously kid you not, this is one of the most brilliant legal moves I've ever seen in sports.

They literally got one of the top cyclists in the world on an banned substance during the biggest races in cycling. And the damn sport approved it.

This is legend status. If your grandpa told you this story you'd tell him to stop making stuff up.

Bravo guys! This is 5 out of 5 stars category, 97% on the rotten tomatoes rating system.

"Sir" David and "Sir" Bradley deserve double knight status with this.

And I'm not kidding. This should be expected for all teams now.

---

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

Here's what you all need to understand, and I hope it's not too technical, equivocating, or intemperate: Fuck Wiggo and the bike he rode in on.

No way man if Sky can make a mockery of the sport legally we should all support it! I mean they didn't do anything wrong!!!

---

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

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss......

If you are not on legal doped TUE drugs in cycling I don't take you serious anymore.

---

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

I feel a asthma coming on and I think it's a big one.......STICK ME, DOC!!!!!!! Give me all you got!!!!!!!

But do you go by "Sir" McNulty? That's critical when applying!

---

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

Application process:


Sir McNulty- hell yeah he deserves all the dope he can get for his issues. TUE approved


McNulty- who does this wanker think he is trying to game our system.

---

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

I'm shanty Irish. I'm fooked.

Setting aside whether they cheated or not. Once we all read this and realised that DB and BW sat down with a Doc (not the rest of the management team as far as we know) and decided that Brad might be suffering from X, that the obvious solution was Y. They'd apply for a TUE and sort out the specialist consult later.

The whole thing makes me feel a little dirty - they do not need to have broken the rules for you to read about this and think that the BS just does not stack up.

FIrstly IF he really has a chronic condition requiring specialist input, he'd not getting an Rx from his team doc. His team doc is likely a general physician / internist / or specialist who's moved across in to a generalists role.

The fact that they sent him for a specialist consult suggests that the team doc wanted a second opinion to validate his dec'n making

Secondly - by and large - and there are clear exceptions to this - physicians are not going to second guess a patients primary physician. You can go for a second opinion but this wasn't a CA diagnosis, this was a steroid for a world class athlete heading in to a competition.

Most specialists would not know the WADA code if it jumped up and bit them in the arse. In fact the legality of a drug or otherwise would not even be a consideration for them in prescribing - they're not being asked to approve a drug for competition, they're being asked to validate a drug for treatment.

So, I would think that they write BW a scrip for what they want to give him, pack him off to see a specialist who might be thinking - its not the only option but equally its as acceptable as any other and to have a fight about an alternative is not worth it, so he signs it off and then DB and BW can say that it was validated by a specialist.

The ONLY problem I have with this entire BS episode is as a follows. BW / DB put themselves on a pedestal as being whiter than white - not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit. They stated that they would never be tainted by doping, they'd not employ ex-dopers or continue to employ current ones but they do not see the incongruity of taking that stance but then finding a physician to prescribe a powerful PED to treat a condition that miraculously shows up moments before the A race of the year OR (and this is even worse) just in case it might.

They've done nothing wrong legally but I'm not sure they've done the right thing either.

An incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. Seasonal allergies have effects that can range from annoying to life threatening. For some people, the occasional use of a Flonase, Singulair etc do the job quite handily. Others, including myself need things which require TUE's just to rise to the miserable level of existence. TUE's are not easy to come by. If you're using Kenacort your allergic reactions are well beyond sniffles. And not everyone responds to the most common asthmatic drugs the same way. I, for example, might as well be using a sugar pill as Ventolin.

An awful lot of presumption in this thread.

---

---------------------------------------------------------
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. -- A fake Albert Einstein "quote"

I think this is less about what was prescribed than the process and behaviors of a team that wanted to be viewed in a certain light.

lets be honest, in the same way that USPS were whiter than white until they we not, Sky have LEGALLY been whiter than white, it just happens to have been a bunch of russian bears with an axe to grind that pointed out that perhaps things are not as clear cut as DB would have liked them to have been.

I think the issues here are far more related to the specific process, timings, transparency and physicians involved than any specific drug

Maybe if you need Kenacort to treat your allergic reactions, you're well beyond sniffles. You could use Kenacort without being badly ill, if you could get a doctor to prescribe it to you.

You've made quite a leap there. At the moment, I think (and I haven't cross-checked every published TUE against the whole Sky team roster) the only Sky TUEs that have been released are Wiggins and Froome. And Froome's look a lot less dodgy than Wiggins - were at times when he was known to be suffering with a chest infection, they weren't just before A races, and he'd already disclosed them publicly a long time before the leak. He's also come out pretty strongly since the leaks to support reform of the TUE process (which could of course just be a good way of trying to deflect attention).

As I said in an earlier post, if it turns out that the entire Sky team is prone to outbreaks of hayfever, asthma and allergies the week before the TdF every year, then they've lost all credibility and I would assume that sponsors would start pulling out and people would be fired. But right now we only know about Wiggins and Froome.

The ability to dominate the peloton with a train is largely down to tactics and money anyway, not doping, since the chances are that most of the peloton are up to the same tricks anyway. Doesn't matter whether the peloton is illegally doping, legally doping via TUEs, or is mostly clean, you're still going to see trains under the current rules. It's partly down to team radios, partly down to teams having 9 riders, partly down to some teams focusing almost 100% on GC, and a lot down to some teams having much deeper pockets than others. If you want to get rid of the Sky train, you either need to cut team sizes and/or enforce a salary cap low enough that they can't rock up to TdF with 3 or 4 domestiques who would be the GC leader on most other teams. Or convince Brailsford to try and win the green jersey and yellow jersey in the same year and split his resources accordingly ;-)

The main point is the other super teams have lots of horsepower, deep pockets and the desire to win as much as Sky. They have also been busted routinely over time too. I accept that the peloton is not doing free for all drug use as was the case during Indurain-Ullrich-Riis-Pantani-Armstrong years, but if you can dominate like any of the teams, you are likely maximizing performance through everything viable under the accepted rules of engagement of the time. If that means putting your GC leader on a legal TUE program that stretches our moral code, it would not be surprising....whether it Sky doing it at the Tour, Astana at the Giro or Movistar at the Vuelta. It's just not surprising. If I wass to find out that Tom Brady or Lionel Messi or Christian Renaldo are either legally or illegally doped, I would not be surprised. I hope they are not, and in the mean time, I just go and enjoy the show. By the way, Real Madrid vs Dortmund last nite was pretty good :-)

There are several teams with deep pockets, but according to this Sky have over twice the budget of Movistar and nearly twice that of Astana for example. That buys a lot of extra talent, particularly when you focus that money almost exclusively on the Tour as Sky does. Since the emergence of Froome they've known that if they bring their A game to the Tour they've got a very good chance of winning it, so they can focus their money and their training programme on having 5-6 top climbers who are peaked in early July. Movistar and Astana don't have that luxury - they have to hedge their bets across Giro and the Vuelta as well.

And yes, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised at any doping revelations about athletes in team ball sports! Soccer and NFL have a lot more money and a lot less testing than cycling, to be honest I'd be more surprised if there wasn't widespread doping in those sports than if there was...

Come on now. One of the most famous celebrities in the UK walks into a Drs. office two weeks (or whatever) before the TdF with TUE application in hand and (speculatively) no acute condition. The WADA legality, on paper, is not a consideration. You can't tell me a specialist wouldn't have an inkling that something was up.

They may have a "flexible" view ;). My primary point was most jobbing specialists wont be familiar with the ins and outs of it and its not a moral judgement. They're just writing a Rx. I take the point that they might put 2 and 2 together and get 4 though.........

Lets stop for one moment saying SKY is operating within the rules.

If they operate within rules, lets ask question: Why Dr. Zorzoli got suspended then let go?

With that very important fact, lets say SKY did not operate within the rules, did SKY have found escaping goat Dr. Zorzoli, if someone would dig hard enough probably would find out about some deal with SKY and said Dr. Zorzoli. It is easier ban some Doc, then for SKY to be exposed.

Do you think Dr. Zorzoli was huge SKY fan and was giving TUEs for free, if that is the case SKY is 100% clean...

Hard to believe he is a fan, at that level it is all about $, so there must be a trace of some transaction/favor. I would love to look at his transactions/purchases etc during each TUE granted. I guess Facy Bears have to hack his PC and email accounts and dig for some more data.