If it's not illegal, is it still cheating/doping?>>XENON BAN

RichN95.

Jez mon wrote:

So to summarise...

Sky haven't played by the ethical guidelines of a group which they aren't affiliated to, but have broken no rules according to the governing body...

(Unfortunately?) ethical or not, what Team Sky did was seemingly within the rules that were in place at the time, and in top level sport, winning often requires going right up to the edge of the rules.

But they're not really 'going right up to the edge of the rules'. There is no suggestion that this has been a regular occurrence or that he didn't need the medication - they only got the TUE because they actually needed it.

axlightness

RichN95 wrote:

axlightness wrote:

It does stink of manipulating the rules. Don't forgot the teams who abide by The MPCC’s ethical code who would have pulled any of their riders from the race with the same issue.

Would they have pulled them? Or would they have kept them riding with lesser medication? And would the rider have even told the team if he had a problem? He may have preferred to keep his illness hidden to prevent being pulled.

And even then none of MPCC's rules seem to explicitly state that is the case. And even then would the teams have complied - plenty of WT team members have broken, tried to break or fallen foul of the rules.

This may help answer your question
“At the MPCC, glucocorticosteroid for us is actually a no go area. It’s not forbidden but what we say is that if you need it, then you’re sick and if you need glucocorticosteroid, you’re too sick to compete. Period."

“If you ask me whether it’s strange that he filed for the TUE, I’d say no and you’ll see that WADA and the UCI have said so too. However the MPCC think that a rider who needs cortisone isn’t fit to ride. That’s not a judgement on Sky it’s just that we go on things a little differently.”

As has been pointed out, Froome won the race, beating four athletes who are part of MPCC teams into second, third, fourth and fifth, and, as Boelens states, it’s not the use of cortisone products that is the issue but the scenario in which they’re used. The MPCC’s stance isn’t just born out of concerns for rider health but from the overlap between that and the ways in which TUEs and cortisone have been abused in the past.

“In the past, cortisone has been used in a negative way. For us that’s another reason not to mix riding racing and using cortisone. As for a performance enhancing drug, cortisone has been used for that in the past and it was given to riders in order to make them ride faster and recover quicker,” Boelens said.

Boelens refrained from voicing his personal opinion on the ethical standards involved. “From what I hear there was nothing sinister and it’s up to WADA and the UCI to validate each TUE on its own merit. If they say this TUE is okay then that’s the end of it,” he added

iainf72

The long and the short of it is people can't find anything within the rules to moan at Froome about, so they basically have to start saying the rules are wrong.

I assume I'd find a well documented history of trying to get WADA to recognise this scourge on sports.

Oh.

axlightness

Turfle wrote:

Just to be sure, this story still isn't about Froome and Sky, right? We still just want the procedure clarified!

Amazing to think that to be accepted as clean all you need to do is sign up as an MPCC member. Astana, Katusha, Garmin, Europcar, Lampre, OGE, RUSVELO (!!!) all above reproach.

The story is about Froome and Sky. At least the MPCC is trying to do something in the way of a clear structure. Are you saying they should not bother because Sky are not part of the MPCC?
I can't think of a team that is above all reproach can you?

axlightness

iainf72 wrote:

The long and the short of it is people can't find anything within the rules to moan at Froome about, so they basically have to start saying the rules are wrong.

I assume I'd find a well documented history of trying to get WADA to recognise this scourge on sports.

Oh.

Rubbish. The same questions would have been asked if this was Contador of Quintana.

iainf72

axlightness wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The long and the short of it is people can't find anything within the rules to moan at Froome about, so they basically have to start saying the rules are wrong.

I assume I'd find a well documented history of trying to get WADA to recognise this scourge on sports.

Oh.

Rubbish. The same questions would have been asked if this was Contador of Quintana.

Sure. You're probably right.

But why do people suddenly care about it when it''s in the press, and presented a certain way? No noise in 2011 when Uran had one issued in the Dolphin?

GGBiker

I've tried xenon, didn't boost performance much, pretty much the same as veloce and Centaur. You would need to go to Record EPS for real results I suspect.

[one for the Campag heads]

hammerite

GGBiker wrote:

I've tried xenon, didn't boost performance much, pretty much the same as veloce and Centaur. You would need to go to Record EPS for real results I suspect.

[one for the Campag heads]

The Xenon rear mech hanger is made of cheese. Doesn't last long during a cyclocross race in muddy conditions with lots of recently strimmed long grass laying about.

RichN95.

axlightness wrote:

This may help answer your question
“At the MPCC, glucocorticosteroid for us is actually a no go area. It’s not forbidden but what we say is that if you need it, then you’re sick and if you need glucocorticosteroid, you’re too sick to compete. Period."

“If you ask me whether it’s strange that he filed for the TUE, I’d say no and you’ll see that WADA and the UCI have said so too. However the MPCC think that a rider who needs cortisone isn’t fit to ride. That’s not a judgement on Sky it’s just that we go on things a little differently.”

Words are easy? How does that work in practice? I've seen plenty of riders riding in conditions that they really shouldn't. Broken bones, concussion etc. What is their standard for needing cortisone? Is it artificially high to keep riders on the road. Are they willing to gamble with a 'wait and see' policy which may cause more long term damage.

axlightness wrote:

As has been pointed out, Froome won the race, beating four athletes who are part of MPCC teams into second, third, fourth and fifth, and, as Boelens states, it’s not the use of cortisone products that is the issue but the scenario in which they’re used. The MPCC’s stance isn’t just born out of concerns for rider health but from the overlap between that and the ways in which TUEs and cortisone have been abused in the past.

There's nothing in the MPCC rules which explicitly prohibits oral corticosteroids. And it's a voluntary organisation anyway. If Katusha (denied a WT licence for ethical reasons), Lampre (constantly in and out of court) and Astana (take your pick of controversy) want to show how moral they are by joining up to a self appointed, unelected, unaccountable club run by people who have been involved in running teams since the last millennium then that's there choice. But don't make the mistake that the MPCC's is the sole guide to morality. Sky have internal policies which the MPCC would oppose as it would put their members out of a job.

axlightness wrote:

“In the past, cortisone has been used in a negative way. For us that’s another reason not to mix riding racing and using cortisone. As for a performance enhancing drug, cortisone has been used for that in the past and it was given to riders in order to make them ride faster and recover quicker,” Boelens said.

Boelens refrained from voicing his personal opinion on the ethical standards involved. “From what I hear there was nothing sinister and it’s up to WADA and the UCI to validate each TUE on its own merit. If they say this TUE is okay then that’s the end of it,” he added

It's also up to WADA and the UCI to validate the rules, not the MPCC. If you don't like the rules appeal to them, but be aware that the WADA code isn't just written over a coffee break by a couple of French ex-pros. It's based on extensive research and expert opinions, not knee jerk reactions and self-promoting grandstanding.

ddraver

axlightness wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The long and the short of it is people can't find anything within the rules to moan at Froome about, so they basically have to start saying the rules are wrong.

I assume I'd find a well documented history of trying to get WADA to recognise this scourge on sports.

Oh.

Rubbish. The same questions would have been asked if this was Contador of Quintana.

No. They wouldn't. And the funny thing is that Riis would just shrug and say nothing...which would be accepted as perfectly ok too...

axlightness

RichN95 wrote:

axlightness wrote:

This may help answer your question
“At the MPCC, glucocorticosteroid for us is actually a no go area. It’s not forbidden but what we say is that if you need it, then you’re sick and if you need glucocorticosteroid, you’re too sick to compete. Period."

“If you ask me whether it’s strange that he filed for the TUE, I’d say no and you’ll see that WADA and the UCI have said so too. However the MPCC think that a rider who needs cortisone isn’t fit to ride. That’s not a judgement on Sky it’s just that we go on things a little differently.”

Words are easy? How does that work in practice? I've seen plenty of riders riding in conditions that they really shouldn't. Broken bones, concussion etc. What is their standard for needing cortisone? Is it artificially high to keep riders on the road. Are they willing to gamble with a 'wait and see' policy which may cause more long term damage.

axlightness wrote:

As has been pointed out, Froome won the race, beating four athletes who are part of MPCC teams into second, third, fourth and fifth, and, as Boelens states, it’s not the use of cortisone products that is the issue but the scenario in which they’re used. The MPCC’s stance isn’t just born out of concerns for rider health but from the overlap between that and the ways in which TUEs and cortisone have been abused in the past.

There's nothing in the MPCC rules which explicitly prohibits oral corticosteroids. And it's a voluntary organisation anyway. If Katusha (denied a WT licence for ethical reasons), Lampre (constantly in and out of court) and Astana (take your pick of controversy) want to show how moral they are by joining up to a self appointed, unelected, unaccountable club run by people who have been involved in running teams since the last millennium then that's there choice. But don't make the mistake that the MPCC's is the sole guide to morality. Sky have internal policies which the MPCC would oppose as it would put their members out of a job.

axlightness wrote:

“In the past, cortisone has been used in a negative way. For us that’s another reason not to mix riding racing and using cortisone. As for a performance enhancing drug, cortisone has been used for that in the past and it was given to riders in order to make them ride faster and recover quicker,” Boelens said.

Boelens refrained from voicing his personal opinion on the ethical standards involved. “From what I hear there was nothing sinister and it’s up to WADA and the UCI to validate each TUE on its own merit. If they say this TUE is okay then that’s the end of it,” he added

It's also up to WADA and the UCI to validate the rules, not the MPCC. If you don't like the rules appeal to them, but be aware that the WADA code isn't just written over a coffee break by a couple of French ex-pros. It's based on extensive research and expert opinions, not knee jerk reactions and self-promoting grandstanding.

I just posted it so you have the view of the MPCC. My view would be to keep it simple and have the same rules apply for everybody that can be enforced. Sky and Froome have not broken any rules but we seem to have a little splinter group setting up with good intentions but also causes confusion.The MPCC do have a fair point but so do Sky.

Turfle

axlightness wrote:

Turfle wrote:

Just to be sure, this story still isn't about Froome and Sky, right? We still just want the procedure clarified!

Amazing to think that to be accepted as clean all you need to do is sign up as an MPCC member. Astana, Katusha, Garmin, Europcar, Lampre, OGE, RUSVELO (!!!) all above reproach.

The story is about Froome and Sky. At least the MPCC is trying to do something in the way of a clear structure. Are you saying they should not bother because Sky are not part of the MPCC?
I can't think of a team that is above all reproach can you?

It wouldn't be a two week+ story if it was anyone else, and you know it.

Irresponsible "journalists" like Dan Benson are getting the masses riled up into thinking this is a smoking gun. "Froome "dopé" par l’UCI" - nothing but an obvious ratings grab to sex up a story that should have been briefly mentioned in the 5th paragraph of a proper story.

axlightness

ddraver wrote:

axlightness wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The long and the short of it is people can't find anything within the rules to moan at Froome about, so they basically have to start saying the rules are wrong.

I assume I'd find a well documented history of trying to get WADA to recognise this scourge on sports.

Oh.

Rubbish. The same questions would have been asked if this was Contador of Quintana.

No. They wouldn't. And the funny thing is that Riis would just shrug and say nothing...which would be accepted as perfectly ok too...

Riss shrugging his shoulders would not divert the press away from this issue if this was one of his big name riders. The MPCC would be having their say as well if it was Contador who had won a race in a similar manner. So I have to disagree with your view. I do think Sky's strong stance against doping has not helped in this situation as it does give the press a chance to give them a bit of stick. Once the tour starts this will be a non event.

axlightness

Turfle wrote:

axlightness wrote:

Turfle wrote:

Just to be sure, this story still isn't about Froome and Sky, right? We still just want the procedure clarified!

Amazing to think that to be accepted as clean all you need to do is sign up as an MPCC member. Astana, Katusha, Garmin, Europcar, Lampre, OGE, RUSVELO (!!!) all above reproach.

The story is about Froome and Sky. At least the MPCC is trying to do something in the way of a clear structure. Are you saying they should not bother because Sky are not part of the MPCC?
I can't think of a team that is above all reproach can you?

It wouldn't be a two week+ story if it was anyone else, and you know it.

Irresponsible "journalists" like Dan Benson are getting the masses riled up into thinking this is a smoking gun. "Froome "dopé" par l’UCI" - nothing but an obvious ratings grab to sex up a story that should have been briefly mentioned in the 5th paragraph of a proper story.

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.
We see lots of doping cases in other sports but some members of the press seem more intent on getting their
chance to put the boot in and Sky would be a big story maybe equal to Armstrong as a media event.
I don't like it as other sports seem to almost get away with case after case of doping. Cycling would IMO lose it's Olympic status. TV would drop it like a bomb and sponsors would be walking away in droves. I really think the press should think about what they are doing and saying. The UCI seem as always to be limp wristed and PR useless.

ddraver

So Sky are now bearing the cross for all of cycling's ills?

Walsh 3:16
Dave so loved the world that he gave Kenya's only begotten cyclist, that whosoever ranteth on twitter, should not bullsh1t, but have everlasting strife. For Dave sent not his cyclist into the Tour to condem the Tour, but that the Tour through Froome might be saved!

Not Catholic are you?

(Yes I was a choir boy and I'm thinking of that one from the Crucifixion by Stainer...)

r0bh

Turfle wrote:

axlightness wrote:

Turfle wrote:

Just to be sure, this story still isn't about Froome and Sky, right? We still just want the procedure clarified!

Amazing to think that to be accepted as clean all you need to do is sign up as an MPCC member. Astana, Katusha, Garmin, Europcar, Lampre, OGE, RUSVELO (!!!) all above reproach.

The story is about Froome and Sky. At least the MPCC is trying to do something in the way of a clear structure. Are you saying they should not bother because Sky are not part of the MPCC?
I can't think of a team that is above all reproach can you?

It wouldn't be a two week+ story if it was anyone else, and you know it.

Irresponsible "journalists" like Dan Benson are getting the masses riled up into thinking this is a smoking gun. "Froome "dopé" par l’UCI" - nothing but an obvious ratings grab to sex up a story that should have been briefly mentioned in the 5th paragraph of a proper story.

That article is really desperate stuff, although I've cone to expect nothing less from Benson/Cycling News which is the Daily Mail of cycling publishing (I refuse to call it journalism).

And people wonder why no big sponsors are coming into the sport. It is becoming toxic not because of actual doping by riders but sections of 'fans' and 'journalists' hell bent on seeing doping in everything despite the lack of any genuine evidence.

BenderRodriguez

Let's assume that Froome really is a long-term chronic asthmatic, as he claims, with a particular problem with exercise-induced asthma which requires him to take a puff on a salbutamol inhaler before he makes a 'big effort', as he put it.

Question is, if his asthma is so bad that he needs to carry an inhaler about with him when racing, why on Earth have the doctors at Sky not put him on a long-term programme of inhaled steroids to control his asthma properly? With the seriousness of Froome's asthma problem surely the UCI would issue him with a TUE for them, and such preventative medication would cut down on his need to puff away on a salbutamol inhaler mid-race, the need for which is generally regarded as a sign that someone's asthma is not been controlled properly.

Naturally, this would be unlikely to require the long-term use of prednisolone, but I would have thought that even something containing something like beclometasone dipropionate would still require a TUE.

type:epyt

ddraver wrote:

So Sky are now bearing the cross for all of cycling's ills?

Walsh 3:16
Dave so loved the world that he gave Kenya's only begotten cyclist, that whosoever ranteth on twitter, should not bullsh1t, but have everlasting strife. For Dave sent not his cyclist into the Tour to condem the Tour, but that the Tour through Froome might be saved!

Not Catholic are you?

(Yes I was a choir boy and I'm thinking of that one from the Crucifixion by Stainer...)

Fenton 3:16 says 'I just had whooping cough'

BenderRodriguez

Turfle wrote:

Irresponsible "journalists" like Dan Benson are getting the masses riled up into thinking this is a smoking gun. "Froome "dopé" par l’UCI" - nothing but an obvious ratings grab to sex up a story that should have been briefly mentioned in the 5th paragraph of a proper story.

People said the same about all the stories that were published in relation to Armstrong from 1999 onwards. The press (or at least a section of the press) focused on issues such as Armstrong's 'positive' for steroids in the 1999 Tour and so forth because deep down they knew that his performances stank like a ripe kipper. On the other hand many fans, especially his 'home' supporters, were all too ready to 'suspend their disbelief' and many thought that, post Festina, there was just too much to lose if the truth came out and so were determined to keep on pushing out the 'miraculous comeback' crap. The parallels with Froome and Sky are obvious.

I also recall how David Walsh once spoke about the reaction in the Tour de France press room when Armstrong first blew everyone away in the 1999 Tour, saying that a collective groan went up followed by laughter and jokes as everyone there realised what Armstrong was up to. Apparently, the reaction was identical when Froome did his comedy motorbike impersonation on the Ventoux last year...

There was a collective groan among the press corps Sunday when Chris Froome (Sky) turned the screws with about 7km to go on France’s hardest climb to drop Alberto Contador (Saxo-Tinkoff).

No, the freebie buffet hadn’t run out. Team Sky just dropped a Froome bomb. And it pissed people off.

“That attack is not the smartest PR move,” grumbled one scandal-weary scribe, “not if he doesn’t want to raise eyebrows.”

Froome made Contador look like an espoir. The Sky captain spun his legs as if they were well-lubed pistons, churning out huge power, grinding his way toward the Ventoux summit and victory, only to leave a swath of doubt in his wake.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/ ... rue_295224

BenderRodriguez

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

On the other hand, let's suppose that Froome/Sky aren't doping and never have. Yet the constant - false - accusations slowly kill the sport anyway.

iainf72

CADF puts a fair amount of daylight between the UCI president and doping cases.

At the end of the day, he's a figurehead and doesn't make every decision for the organisation

inseine

BenderRodriguez wrote:

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

This really is the conspiracy theorists point of view.
If they don’t get caught doping it proves there is a cover up, which is even more damning than being caught because it’s doping + corruption!

TMR

BenderRodriguez wrote:

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Always.

inseine

TMR wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Always.

exactly (OK, I had to look it up....)

wombly_knees

inseine wrote:

TMR wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

axlightness wrote:

If Sky ever got caught doping and Froome in particular I dare not think of the damage this would cause.

Exactly.

Just let's suppose that proof that Froome /Sky were doping arrived on Brian Cookson's desk. Do you suppose that he would be willing to effectively destroy the future of British cycling, with all the other ramifications this would have for the already low status of cyclists in Britain, or would he be more likely to act much as McQuaid did during the Armstrong era? Given the potential fall-out, I am not sure that even I would let the truth out...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Always.

exactly (OK, I had to look it up....)

Is it better than the punto?

dsoutar

From Cyclism Actu:

There are ten days that Chris Froome, the last winner of the Tour de France, had "used a high dose of corticosteroids during the Tour de Romandie with the complicity of the International Cycling Federation, the UCI. "

Yesterday evening, the UCI had opened an investigation, issued a press release. It announced it would review its procedures on authorization for therapeutic use (AUT), a decision which thus following the Froome case, who was entitled to inject a drug steroids based on the Tour de Romandie.

"Working closely with the World Anti-Doping and Director General David Howman, the UCI Agency has reviewed all of its rules and procedures, including those relating to authorization for therapeutic use anti-doping. A completely revised set of rules is in preparation and will come into force on 1 January 2015, together with the WADA Code in 2015 and revised international standards, including the International Standard for Therapeutic Use authorizations (AUT). In the Now, the UCI confirms that from now on, all decisions go through the TUE committee. "

This TUE committee already exists according to regulation UCI. And all TUE applications should go through a committee of three doctors. But in the case of Chris Fromme on the Tour de Romandie, the authorization was validated in the field by one medical director of the UCI, Dr. Mario Zorzoli.

However, the UCI has once again reiterated that the team of Chris Froome, Team Sky, had followed all necessary procedures regarding the granting of a TUE.

Also reaction from Brailsford (in French)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zigv ... e-20_sport

BenderRodriguez

inseine wrote:

[This really is the conspiracy theorists point of view. If they don’t get caught doping it proves there is a cover up, which is even more damning than being caught because it’s doping + corruption!

Not at all. It is quite possible, irrespective of whether Sky dope or not, to ask the question 'Would Cookson be willing to effectively let British cycling be destroyed should it come to his knowledge that Sky were doping'. In my view, he would very probably try to keep that knowledge out of the public domain.

TMR wrote:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Always.

I would tend to agree. But at the cost of destroying British cycling, and possibly ending the Olympic status of cycling on the world stage, etc?

Let's face it. The UCI has generally applied the very opposite of the principle you cite.

BenderRodriguez

dsoutar wrote:

From Cyclism Actu:

There are ten days that Chris Froome, the last winner of the Tour de France, had "used a high dose of corticosteroids during the Tour de Romandie with the complicity of the International Cycling Federation, the UCI. "

Yesterday evening, the UCI had opened an investigation, issued a press release. It announced it would review its procedures on authorization for therapeutic use (AUT), a decision which thus following the Froome case, who was entitled to inject a drug steroids based on the Tour de Romandie.

"Working closely with the World Anti-Doping and Director General David Howman, the UCI Agency has reviewed all of its rules and procedures, including those relating to authorization for therapeutic use anti-doping. A completely revised set of rules is in preparation and will come into force on 1 January 2015, together with the WADA Code in 2015 and revised international standards, including the International Standard for Therapeutic Use authorizations (AUT). In the Now, the UCI confirms that from now on, all decisions go through the TUE committee. "

This TUE committee already exists according to regulation UCI. And all TUE applications should go through a committee of three doctors. But in the case of Chris Fromme on the Tour de Romandie, the authorization was validated in the field by one medical director of the UCI, Dr. Mario Zorzoli.

However, the UCI has once again reiterated that the team of Chris Froome, Team Sky, had followed all necessary procedures regarding the granting of a TUE.

Also reaction from Brailsford (in French)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zigv ... e-20_sport

If only Sky would learn that it is not enough just to 'talk the talk'...

I also have a feeling that if they didn't try to paint themselves as being so much more virtuous than other teams, then people wouldn't be so quick to pick holes in their claims when they fail to measure up to their own PR BS.

r0bh

BenderRodriguez wrote:

dsoutar wrote:

From Cyclism Actu:

There are ten days that Chris Froome, the last winner of the Tour de France, had "used a high dose of corticosteroids during the Tour de Romandie with the complicity of the International Cycling Federation, the UCI. "

Yesterday evening, the UCI had opened an investigation, issued a press release. It announced it would review its procedures on authorization for therapeutic use (AUT), a decision which thus following the Froome case, who was entitled to inject a drug steroids based on the Tour de Romandie.

"Working closely with the World Anti-Doping and Director General David Howman, the UCI Agency has reviewed all of its rules and procedures, including those relating to authorization for therapeutic use anti-doping. A completely revised set of rules is in preparation and will come into force on 1 January 2015, together with the WADA Code in 2015 and revised international standards, including the International Standard for Therapeutic Use authorizations (AUT). In the Now, the UCI confirms that from now on, all decisions go through the TUE committee. "

This TUE committee already exists according to regulation UCI. And all TUE applications should go through a committee of three doctors. But in the case of Chris Fromme on the Tour de Romandie, the authorization was validated in the field by one medical director of the UCI, Dr. Mario Zorzoli.

However, the UCI has once again reiterated that the team of Chris Froome, Team Sky, had followed all necessary procedures regarding the granting of a TUE.

Also reaction from Brailsford (in French)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zigv ... e-20_sport

If only Sky would learn that it is not enough just to 'talk the talk'...

I also have a feeling that if they didn't try to paint themselves as being so much more virtuous than other teams, then people wouldn't be so quick to pick holes in their claims when they fail to measure up to their own PR BS.

I'm interested to hear what you think Sky (or indeed any other team) should have done when applying for a TUE other than follow the process put in place by the UCI.