If it's not illegal, is it still cheating/doping?>>XENON BAN
Comments
-
r0bh wrote: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.
Sky should have followed their own 'anti-doping policy' and pulled their rider from the event rather than applying for a TUE in the first place. (As any member of the Movement for Credible Cycling would also have been required to do.)"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
if rider is ill to need prescription how come he well enough to win race. if infection, need rest or get more ill.
not ethical doctor advise patient to race bike when I'll.
Froome and Wiggins often chest infection when race yet race well0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote: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.
You can ask the question and of course you are welcome to your point of view, but by doing that you have already decided that SKY could be doping and the UCI corrupt. As I said before, I couldn't watch the sport if i believed that but each to their own. Also, you've made your point, I don't see what else is to be said.0 -
No they shouldn't. Sky have never said they wouldn't use TUEs. WADA guidelines allow TUEs for good reason and thier code is drawn up by experts not a clique of DSs who a dozen years ago where encouraging their riders to dope.BenderRodriguez wrote:Sky should have followed their own 'anti-doping policy' and pulled their rider from the event rather than applying for a TUE in the first place. (As any member of the Movement for Credible Cycling would also have been required to do.)
WADA make the rules not MPCC, which is becoming like organised religion with its self appointed authority and its self-serving commandments claiming moral superiority over others. Why are their rules more virtuous than Sky, who don't knowingly employ people who have been involved in doping? Why not have that rule at the MPCC? Is it because most of the MPCC have been involved in doping in the past? They are basically a marketing device, not a moral authority.
Either you keep to the doping rules or you don't. That's all that matters.Twitter: @RichN950 -
BenderRodriguez wrote: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.
Hate to come over all rayjay/tuneskyline/whoeverelsehehasonthegorightnow but Sky are now supposed to race according to PR?
Jesus do people actually read the sh1t they write on here?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
John Fish wrote:if rider is ill to need prescription how come he well enough to win race. if infection, need rest or get more ill.
not ethical doctor advise patient to race bike when I'll.
Froome and Wiggins often chest infection when race yet race well
Pretty sure Wiggins is more associated with pulling out of races with a chest infection (Giro 2013, Tour de Suisse 2014).
It is a reasonable argument to say that the rules should be changed so that if a TUE is granted then the athlete should be withdrawn from competition for X days. However the counter argument is that if this were the case athletes would be more likely to hide their symptoms so they can continue to race, possibly doing long-term damage to their health.
In any case the rules as they stand are that TUEs are permitted. Anyone who wants to change that should lobby WADA or their NADA, not try to impose their version of the rules on others.0 -
Good article on doping across a spectrum of sports (in French)
http://www.cyclismactu.net/news-mag-le- ... 41650.html
As usual, cycling is the whipping boy but I guess we all know that0 -
Anyone objecting to the allowance TUEs within the WADA code should start with the event which has more TUEs than any other event - the Paralympics. If you can tell them that they can't have their TUEs then you can continue with the rest. Otherwise it's faux moral grandstanding.r0bh wrote:It is a reasonable argument to say that the rules should be changed so that if a TUE is granted then the athlete should be withdrawn from competition for X days. However the counter argument is that if this were the case athletes would be more likely to hide their symptoms so they can continue to race, possibly doing long-term damage to their health.
In any case the rules as they stand are that TUEs are permitted. Anyone who wants to change that should lobby WADA or their NADA, not try to impose their version of the rules on others.Twitter: @RichN950 -
r0bh wrote:John Fish wrote:if rider is ill to need prescription how come he well enough to win race. if infection, need rest or get more ill.
not ethical doctor advise patient to race bike when I'll.
Froome and Wiggins often chest infection when race yet race well
Pretty sure Wiggins is more associated with pulling out of races with a chest infection (Giro 2013, Tour de Suisse 2014).
It is a reasonable argument to say that the rules should be changed so that if a TUE is granted then the athlete should be withdrawn from competition for X days. However the counter argument is that if this were the case athletes would be more likely to hide their symptoms so they can continue to race, possibly doing long-term damage to their health.
In any case the rules as they stand are that TUEs are permitted. Anyone who wants to change that should lobby WADA or their NADA, not try to impose their version of the rules on others.
The argument that "if a rider is ill enough to need a TUE he shouldn't race" is fundamentally flawed from the outset. While it may be a generally good idea (though needing to address your counter argument) it's based on a very hazy definition of "ill". For instance, Froome has a TUE for his inhaler, for his asthma. Should he be withdrawn from any race where he needs to use it? Does his asthma count as an illness in this definition?
Likewise the predniolone TUE. This was to prevent a past lung infection exacerbating his asthma.
The MPCC rules on corticosteroids were put in place because A) riders were using them for performance enhancement and
the typical TUEs granted were for injuries, which would be exacerbated by continuing to ride. These were injuries that really did need rest for proper recovery. This quite patently wasn't the case with Froome's infection - he was recovered from it, riding with it's aftermath wouldn't make it worse, but did cause his asthma to flare up. Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I didn't think you needed a TUE for an inhaler? Otherwise he couldn't have claimed no TUEs in last year Tour?0
-
It's possible to believe that Froome was legitimately sick, that Sky followed the rules in obtaining an approriate TUE to prevent secondary complications, AND that they were collossaly ill-advised in doing so due to the performance enhancing effect of the therapy.
Team clean shouldn't be riding around hopped-up on 'roids....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:This quite patently wasn't the case with Froome's infection - he was recovered from it, riding with it's aftermath wouldn't make it worse, but did cause his asthma to flare up.
He wasn't fully recovered from it then was he.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I am amazed this is the first thread to include Asthma medications.
Cyclists have been using Ventolin and the like for years.0 -
jimmythecuckoo wrote:I am amazed this is the first thread to include Asthma medications.
Cyclists have been using Ventolin and the like for years.
Exactly
Nothing at all to do with the fact that it's Froome / Sky
In fact I too used to think that cyclists were taking the pee a bit about this but then I did a bit of research and found that indeed they are more prone to asthma and related respiratory issues. I did post a reference to a paper on this but I've forgotten where I posted it and can't be arsed to search0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote: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.
Yes. Otherwise what's the point in having rules in the first place? There has to be zero tolerance.
I don't think it would damage grass roots cycling in any event. There are a lot of Olympic disciplines which have been historically marred by drug abuse, the scandal tends to stick to the individual rather than the event.
I think you are right re: the UCI. But look at the damage it has done. The wrong choice.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote: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.
As I predicted, it seems that he does take a 'daily dose' of corticosteriod to control his asthma (fluticasone). I would have thought that a TUE would be needed for this, although no one has so far admitted that he has one...CF: I take a protein drink, fish oils, energizer greens – a CMP vegetable drink -nothing out of the ordinary. I take Loratadine every day, an anti-histamine that helps me with skin reactions to sun creams and the rubbish that seems to flare up my skin. I take my inhaler every day.
PK: Is that Ventolin?
CF: Ventolin only if I’ve got effort. Fluticasone is a daily one, more a preventative, so I take two sprays.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 94950.html"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
I bet you're in a state of constant bewilderment that the WADA code doesn't take account of your thoughts.BenderRodriguez wrote:
As I predicted, it seems that he does take a 'daily dose' of corticosteriod to control his asthma (fluticasone). I would have thought that a TUE would be needed for this, although no one has so far admitted that he has one...
Twitter: @RichN950 -
I keep thinking of Tony Rominger and his "Summer" Hay fever.
He could race and win in the spring time (ie Liege and the Vuelta) in April/May and again in the Autumn (ie Lombardy).
Then these spray's came along to allow him to race during the summer.
I don't understand the controversy as It's not like laying on a bed for two or three hours for a blood change.
Seems to be nit picking now.
Maybe I've missed something.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
RichN95 wrote:
I bet you're in a state of constant bewilderment that the WADA code doesn't take account of your thoughts.BenderRodriguez wrote:
As I predicted, it seems that he does take a 'daily dose' of corticosteriod to control his asthma (fluticasone). I would have thought that a TUE would be needed for this, although no one has so far admitted that he has one...
I did say "I would have thought that a TUE would be needed for this"...
OK, so it seems that one can take some corticosteroids without needing a TUE. Even so, the rules only allow their use within normal therapeutic doses so, as with salbutamol, one could still test positive if one took a few too many 'puffs'."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Macaloon wrote:It's possible to believe that Froome was legitimately sick, that Sky followed the rules in obtaining an approriate TUE to prevent secondary complications, AND that they were collossaly ill-advised in doing so due to the performance enhancing effect of the therapy.
Team clean shouldn't be riding around hopped-up on 'roids.
So what benefit are you aware of that numerous scientific studies have failed to find?
Not all steroids are the same, you know.
The whole point of the wada limits are essentially no performance benefit, low risk to health and medical need.0 -
deejay wrote:Maybe I've missed something.
The baby being chucked out with the bathwater.Correlation is not causation.0 -
deejay wrote:I don't understand the controversy as It's not like laying on a bed for two or three hours for a blood change. Seems to be nit picking now. Maybe I've missed something.
I think it is simply just people making the assumption that a claim such as, 'We (Sky) don't use any doping products, such as corticosteroids' means that 'we don't use corticosteroids at all'.
Clearly, as that interview with Froome shows, there is rather a lot of 'grey area' between what constitutes the legitmate use of drugs such as corticosteroids, and what constitutes doping. After all, if 10 puffs a day of Beclometasone is held to have doping effect, and so is banned without the use of a TUE, but 9 puffs is held to be fine, why not take 9 puffs and get most of the benefit of a 'doping' dose? I think that this is the logic that underpins the fact that a majority of the pro peloton and inhaler-puffing 'asthmatics'."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:The whole point of the wada limits are essentially no performance benefit, low risk to health and medical need.
And even just above those relatively low limits there is presumably still a doping effect, otherwise, why would WADA demand a TUE..."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Wada doesn't.BenderRodriguez wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:The whole point of the wada limits are essentially no performance benefit, low risk to health and medical need.
And even just above those relatively low limits there is presumably still a doping effect, otherwise, why would WADA demand a TUE...0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:
Wada doesn't.BenderRodriguez wrote:And even just above those relatively low limits there is presumably still a doping effect, otherwise, why would WADA demand a TUE...
Really?
The following is taken from UKAD's guidance note on asthma medications.This document provides information to outline the current status of asthma medication in the United Kingdom in line with the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. It provides some listed brand name examples and explains when a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is required...
Beclometasone: A TUE* will only be required if using more than 9 puffs per day"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
I'm confused.
You think 10 puffs a day are relatively low limits?
Out of curiosity, what performance enhancement to do you think beclamethasone gives?0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:I'm confused.
You think 10 puffs a day are relatively low limits?
Out of curiosity, what performance enhancement to do you think beclamethasone gives?
You might be better asking Wada, as it is they who have decided to allow athletes to take no more than 9 puffs a day."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:I'm confused.
You think 10 puffs a day are relatively low limits?
Out of curiosity, what performance enhancement to do you think beclamethasone gives?
You might be better asking Wada, as it is they who have decided to allow athletes to take no more than 9 puffs a day.
Maybe _you_ should ask WADA, before writing endless posts on here that people then have to waste their time replying to point out your factual inaccuracies.0
