So he was injected with a powerful corticosteroid with potentially dangerous side-effects just before the 2011 and 2012 Tours de France and the 2013 Giro. He applied for and received a TUE for them both times - so he followed the rules.
I think it is clear that the rules need to change. But it is also clear that his actions are very much against the spirit of clean sport. Here is what David Millar, doper cum anti-doping crusader says about this drug:
“As I said in my book , I took EPO and testosterone patches, and they obviously produce huge differences in your blood and you felt at your top level … Kenacort, though, was the only one you took and three days later you looked different.
“I remember it was one of the reasons I took sleeping pills because Kenacort put you on this weird high. It’s quite scary because it’s catabolic so it’s eating into you. It felt destructive. It felt powerful.â€
Millar said there was no doubt in his mind that the drug was performance-enhancing and called on the powers-that-be to ban its use in-competition via TUEs.
“You would do all the training but my weight would stick,†he said. “But if I took Kenacort, 1.5-2kgs would drop off in like a week. And not only would the weight drop off I would feel stronger.
“If you are non-asthmatic and you take Ventolin it’s not going to give you any advantage. But if you take Kenacort it’s not only going to make a sick person better, it’s going to make a sick person better than a healthy person. That’s a very grey area.
Do we consider Wiggins just taking all of the legal advantages he could, or do we consider it an immoral choice, looking to gain an advantage against riders who respect clean sport and/or not be forced to take dangerous substances in order to be successful?
But if you take Kenacort it’s not only going to make a sick person better, it’s going to make a sick person better than a healthy person. That’s a very grey area.
That is a very powerful quote IMO. I don’t like it one bit. Given the chatter around Schoemen, I would love to know what he was given to make his miraculous recovery from hospital => Podium. I think at a bare minimum the medical records of athletes should not be private. We should be held to higher standard for proper transparency.
I was just talking with my wife about this last night. My personal opinion is that I don’t consider him, or anyone else with a TUE, a doper. I view dopers as someone breaking the rules and taking a banned substance. If the governing body approved the short term use of something that would otherwise be banned, then I see that as okay as long as that organization applied the approval/denial consistently across athletes. If not, I still wouldn’t consider the athlete that received the TUE a doper, but rather would want to see the organization implement clearer procedures on approving/rejecting TUE requests so they are consistent.
Another question would be would you consider someone a doper if they took a substance early in their career (or when they raced decades ago) that was legal at the time but has since been banned? I would still say no - they were playing within the rules in place at the time.
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
But if you take Kenacort it’s not only going to make a sick person better, it’s going to make a sick person better than a healthy person. That’s a very grey area.
That is a very powerful quote IMO. I don’t like it one bit. Given the chatter around Schoemen, I would love to know what he was given to make his miraculous recovery from hospital => Podium. I think at a bare minimum the medical records of athletes should not be private. We should be held to higher standard for proper transparency.
Yes - I find his sudden resurgence alarming to say the least. To quote a famous doper “It’s not normal”.
I was just talking with my wife about this last night. My personal opinion is that I don’t consider him, or anyone else with a TUE, a doper. I view dopers as someone breaking the rules and taking a banned substance. If the governing body approved the short term use of something that would otherwise be banned, then I see that as okay as long as that organization applied the approval/denial consistently across athletes. If not, I still wouldn’t consider the athlete that received the TUE a doper, but rather would want to see the organization implement clearer procedures on approving/rejecting TUE requests so they are consistent.
Another question would be would you consider someone a doper if they took a substance early in their career (or when they raced decades ago) that was legal at the time but has since been banned? I would still say no - they were playing within the rules in place at the time.
So just about everybody gets a sniffle from allergies from time-to-time. Would you apply for a TUE for Kenacort for your A-race next season? If not, why not?
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
They say he needed it because sometimes he has hay fever. I.E. pollen makes him sneeze sometimes.
I was just talking with my wife about this last night. My personal opinion is that I don’t consider him, or anyone else with a TUE, a doper. I view dopers as someone breaking the rules and taking a banned substance. If the governing body approved the short term use of something that would otherwise be banned, then I see that as okay as long as that organization applied the approval/denial consistently across athletes. If not, I still wouldn’t consider the athlete that received the TUE a doper, but rather would want to see the organization implement clearer procedures on approving/rejecting TUE requests so they are consistent.
Another question would be would you consider someone a doper if they took a substance early in their career (or when they raced decades ago) that was legal at the time but has since been banned? I would still say no - they were playing within the rules in place at the time.
So just about everybody gets a sniffle from allergies from time-to-time. Would you apply for a TUE for Kenacort for your A-race next season? If not, why not?
I’m not a professional, so doing well in my A race doesn’t impact my ability to make an income. I would not go apply for a TUE to take this, unless a physician said it was the only way to get well. At that point I’d likely not race and focus on getting well. I would have no problem with another athlete taking it if they applied for a TUE and were approved. Like I said I’d only have a problem if two athletes presented the same case for a TUE and only one was granted an approval, and in that scenario I’d fault the organization and not the athlete.
If a substance is taken under the guidance of the rules, is it doping?
This is exactly the question I’m asking. No zooming out necessary. I am not saying that if it is doping he should be banned - he clearly followed the rules and therefore should not be banned. But should we consider his choices immoral?
If an allowable substance is later banned, do you retroactively ban athletes who took that substance? I.e. Meldonium.
No. You don’t. I do not think many people would advocate this.
It seems to me that this involves a lot of subjective opinion on intent, which is impossible to ascertain.
Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but that does not mean it is not worth discussion. But I think intent can be understood here with reasonable certainty - how reasonable is it to prescribe Kenacort to treat hay fever? Kinda seems like shooting a mosquito with a bazooka. Combine that with massive cycling performance benefits and the timing of each TUE and it seems clear that it was prescribed primarily to give him an advantage in those three races.
how reasonable is it to prescribe Kenacort to treat hay fever? Kinda seems like shooting a mosquito with a bazooka.
The team doctor and governing body deemed it reasonable. I’d suggest uninformed medical opinion from fans is not helpful. If the system is not functioning, why not discuss that? Suggesting that a particular athlete’S TUE was suspect, although within the rules, is less valuable. Too many factors will influence individuals’ perceptions. Where’s the value in that discussion?
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
They say he needed it because sometimes he has hay fever. I.E. pollen makes him sneeze sometimes.
You are grossly under-representing symptoms which would require a drug of this kind. Wiggins may well have been gaming the system, but he still needed a doc to verify his symptoms, etc.
No one would give a TUE for this because they “sneeze sometimes”.
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
They say he needed it because sometimes he has hay fever. I.E. pollen makes him sneeze sometimes.
You are grossly under-representing symptoms which would require a drug of this kind. Wiggins may well have been gaming the system, but he still needed a doc to verify his symptoms, etc.
No one would give a TUE for this because they “sneeze sometimes”.
If his symptoms were that bad, wouldn’t he require the drug for training, more than once per a year, just prior to the biggest races?
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
They say he needed it because sometimes he has hay fever. I.E. pollen makes him sneeze sometimes.
You are grossly under-representing symptoms which would require a drug of this kind. Wiggins may well have been gaming the system, but he still needed a doc to verify his symptoms, etc.
No one would give a TUE for this because they “sneeze sometimes”.
If his symptoms were that bad, wouldn’t he require the drug for training, more than once per a year, just prior to the biggest races?
I dunno…ask Wiggo. I’m not defending him, just pointing out that, if he required the drug / TUE for his symptoms, he was not just just “sneezing sometimes.”
I guess that depends on the intended use. Were they treating tendinitis or knee issues (i.e., a legitimate use) or was it administered solely to improve performance? I don’t expect people to forgo needed medical treatment in the name of sport, so I support the TUE system. It’s the dildos who bend the rules that make problems for the legit users.
They say he needed it because sometimes he has hay fever. I.E. pollen makes him sneeze sometimes.
You are grossly under-representing symptoms which would require a drug of this kind. Wiggins may well have been gaming the system, but he still needed a doc to verify his symptoms, etc.
No one would give a TUE for this because they “sneeze sometimes”.
If his symptoms were that bad, wouldn’t he require the drug for training, more than once per a year, just prior to the biggest races?
I dunno…ask Wiggo. I’m not defending him, just pointing out that, if he required the drug / TUE for his symptoms, he was not just just “sneezing sometimes.”
True - I agree with that. I think the question is, was he really sick enough to require that? If he was that sick, should he have been racing? Would he have been able to win the Tour de France while being that sick? Or might he have been gaming the TUE system with a compliant doctor? Obviously I do not know the answer to that. But I think it is a legitimate question, and there is enough info to make some educated guesses. His team doctor from 2009 when he placed 3rd (after armstrong’s DQ) is questioning the legitimacy of the prescription: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/23/bradley-wiggins-former-doctor-questions-use-banned-steroid
I think its pretty clear that in spite of wanting to believe that both British Cycling and Sky were whiter than white, they obviously had no compunction about pushing the limits and when I read this it reminded me of the Armstrong deposition (I think) where Armstrong asks whether the person asking the questions understands the difference between anabolic and catabolic
Wiggins obviously knew what it offered and had an agreeable physician who facilitated it
disappointing but i’m not suprised, so we can no longer blood dope, dropping weight is fine though if you have a TUE…
how reasonable is it to prescribe Kenacort to treat hay fever? Kinda seems like shooting a mosquito with a bazooka.
The team doctor and governing body deemed it reasonable. I’d suggest uninformed medical opinion from fans is not helpful. If the system is not functioning, why not discuss that? Suggesting that a particular athlete’S TUE was suspect, although within the rules, is less valuable. Too many factors will influence individuals’ perceptions. Where’s the value in that discussion?
The job of a cycling team doctor is to dope the riders. The doctor at the UCI who was signing off on TUEs, Dr. Zorzoli, was actively helping teams dope during the 00s. When the UCI switched from a 50% HCT limit to off-score, Dr. Zorzoli went around to the teams to explain how the teams’ riders’ blood values from previous seasons would have fared under the standard about to be enforced and how to adjust values to avoid triggering detection. He gave presentations that had graphs of the riders’ blood values and which values would be suspicious. The graphs shown during the presentations to the riders were anonymized, but team staff were given the names so those riders’ medical programs could be modified. Interesting enough, Dr. Zorzoli is a friend of Geert Lienders, the former Rabobank dope doctor who was hired by Team Sky, and bogus TUEs were one of the cornerstones of Rabobank’s doping program. Zorzoli went further than that; he made suggestions to Rabobank about which drugs the team should use.
The timing of Wiggins’ TUEs make it very clear what the intent was. They were before the three GTs he targeted, after he stopped targeting GTs he stopped getting TUEs, and the Giro one was a preventative for a grass that doesn’t grow in Italy. Giving Kenacort for pollen is about as legit as giving heroin for a headache. Look at the statements and writing of Wiggins and Brailsford about their position on doping: Everything from Wiggins being afraid of needles to never using injections to pulling riders from races instead of getting TUEs to never being associated with doping doctors. Et cetera. Et cetera. Heck, Wiggins cannot even tell the truth about racing with Armstrong; he has made statements that he never raced with LA except the 2004 Dauphine even though he rode side by side with him for hours in 2009. Wiggins built his reputation on being an outspoken opponent of doping and the statements that were used to build that reputation have turned out to be lies. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out what is what. From Wiggins being a pro for seven years and never placing in the top 100 of the Tour to blubbering to his team after being beaten by the 135 lb Contador in the 2009 Paris-Nice time trial he made his season’s goal to suddenly finding he could be a world class grand tour climber by losing some weight should have made anyone with more than a few dozen brain cells laugh out loud about the absurdity of cleanly riding into fourth place against Contador, LA, the Schleck sisters, and, let’s not forget, a totally jacked Franco Pellizotti.
And no, having a crooked doctor to give bogus a TUE then getting the corrupt UCI to rubber stamp it is not legal under the doping code despite what the fanboy muppets and the British media would have the public believe.
I’m sorry but santa isn’t real they all dope still and so do all your favorite pro triathletes just get over it
What does “get over it” mean? Does it mean just allow everyone to dope and not worry about it? Should I allow that attitude to carry over to AG triathlon where I have to race the dopers? What about high school cross country?