CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling
Comments
-
Apologies if this has been already covered in the countless threads there have been, but is there any link (I mean a link with evidence or admission by the persons in question) between the package being received by Freeman and when it was administered to a rider.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
What's the reason for taking it if there is no medical benefit? If it helps recovery during training blocks - that's a medical justification. It assists weight loss - that's a medical justification. It's a very loose term - and largely unenforceable.Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:
There is actually, justified makes it much harder to explain as arguably any treatment for allergies can be deemed necessary. Thanks for pointing it out. Still doesn't change the fact that he can't freely inject triamcinolone OOC and be within the rules, even in 2011.RichN95 wrote:
Medically Justified - not medically necessary. There's a big difference between those phrases.Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:medically necessary
So, is taking EPO to get your hematocrit up to 50% medically justifiable? Or topping up with testosterone to get it to 'normal' levels?
Sky have been crossing their thin blue line and are now being called to account for it. And rightly so.0 -
Yes, most PEDs are medically justifiable. They are used to improve or repair the abilities of the body - that's the very definition of a medical justification. But most are banned at all times.Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
I'll remind you that it was you who said Wiggins could basically inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. You are wrong, it's really easy to admit it and move on.Twitter: @RichN950 -
If your normal haematocrit is normally 50%, then yes - that's what it's made forRodrego Hernandez wrote:So, is taking EPO to get your hematocrit up to 50% medically justifiable? Or topping up with testosterone to get it to 'normal' levels?
And for testosterone - yes, that's what it's made for.
But in sport it's against the rules.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
If your normal haematocrit is normally 50%, then yes - that's what it's made forRodrego Hernandez wrote:So, is taking EPO to get your hematocrit up to 50% medically justifiable? Or topping up with testosterone to get it to 'normal' levels?
And for testosterone - yes, that's what it's made for.
But in sport it's against the rules.
I meant in a sporting context. I assume that you meant Wiggins could take as much kenalog as he liked in a sporting context, otherwise it's not really the discussion to be having an a sports forum.0 -
Richj wrote:Apologies if this has been already covered in the countless threads there have been, but is there any link (I mean a link with evidence or admission by the persons in question) between the package being received by Freeman and when it was administered to a rider.
Dr Freeman says it was Fluimucil and administered it at the Dauphine. Wiggins confirmed he was administered with Fluimucil, but does not recall the actual package being delivered/handed over etc. Simon Cope brought a package, but didn't have a clue what was in it. There is no paper trail to corroborate this sequence of events. Or any evidence to prove anything to the contrary, for that matter. Repeat to fade...0 -
pedro118118 wrote:Richj wrote:Apologies if this has been already covered in the countless threads there have been, but is there any link (I mean a link with evidence or admission by the persons in question) between the package being received by Freeman and when it was administered to a rider.
Dr Freeman says it was Fluimucil and administered it at the Dauphine. Wiggins confirmed he was administered with Fluimucil, but does not recall the actual package being delivered/handed over etc. Simon Cope brought a package, but didn't have a clue what was in it. There is no paper trail to corroborate this sequence of events. Or any evidence to prove anything to the contrary, for that matter. Repeat to fade...
Thanks0 -
Richj wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Richj wrote:Apologies if this has been already covered in the countless threads there have been, but is there any link (I mean a link with evidence or admission by the persons in question) between the package being received by Freeman and when it was administered to a rider.
Dr Freeman says it was Fluimucil and administered it at the Dauphine. Wiggins confirmed he was administered with Fluimucil, but does not recall the actual package being delivered/handed over etc. Simon Cope brought a package, but didn't have a clue what was in it. There is no paper trail to corroborate this sequence of events. Or any evidence to prove anything to the contrary, for that matter. Repeat to fade...
Thanks
don't forget that Cope was there anyway to see a cyclist who turned out to be in Spain. Originally they could prove they did not inject him after the race because the bus had gone before Wiggins finished his media duties. The fact that these were so easily disproved and broadcast makes me think that Brailsford does not fully get the new modern world.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.0 -
As are injections, which is the point under discussion. Wiggins can take as much triamcinolone through allowable routes as he wants. He can't inject it without a medically justifiable reason and no better alternative based on best practice. Best practice for treating someone who is tired is rest, just in case you were wondering.RichN95 wrote:
Yes, most PEDs are medically justifiable. They are used to improve or repair the abilities of the body - that's the very definition of a medical justification. But most are banned at all times.Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
I'll remind you that it was you who said Wiggins could basically inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. You are wrong, it's really easy to admit it and move on.0 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?0 -
pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?
Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.0 -
It is an odd one, Team SKY came in to the sport with a mantra of winning the TDF with a clean British rider as a clean transparent team, I remember laughing a lot at the that statement at the time. They put themselves on a pedestal to be judged and needed to be whiter than white.
For me it looks like they operated in a very grey area, maybe they didn't break any rules but they appear to have pushed the boundaries as far as they could. They have come across completely disorganised and between them for this whole CMS process haven't even got their stories straight and have contradicted one another or overly used the phase "as I understand it".
But for me the whole thing lacks context, from my position as a hobby cyclist working in IT it looks a mess and no way to act, but professional sport is an odd place. I remember a talk with John Herety (different level I know) a few years ago and couldn't get over how disorganised they were as an outfit. Turning up to races without bikes, never knowing where riders where and even hiring a rider who couldn't drive and they realised he couldn't get to any races once the contract was signed. Do Astana, FDJ operate the same way as SKY? How about other sports, football don't seem to care much about the ADAMs system. Are SKY just being used to highlight a bigger problem with managing sports teams in general and how they operate with Drs and their medical practices.0 -
Richj wrote:It is an odd one, Team SKY came in to the sport with a mantra of winning the TDF with a clean British rider as a clean transparent team, I remember laughing a lot at the that statement at the time. They put themselves on a pedestal to be judged and needed to be whiter than white.
For me it looks like they operated in a very grey area, maybe they didn't break any rules but they appear to have pushed the boundaries as far as they could. They have come across completely disorganised and between them for this whole CMS process haven't even got their stories straight and have contradicted one another or overly used the phase "as I understand it".
But for me the whole thing lacks context, from my position as a hobby cyclist working in IT it looks a mess and no way to act, but professional sport is an odd place. I remember a talk with John Herety (different level I know) a few years ago and couldn't get over how disorganised they were as an outfit. Turning up to races without bikes, never knowing where riders where and even hiring a rider who couldn't drive and they realised he couldn't get to any races once the contract was signed. Do Astana, FDJ operate the same way as SKY? How about other sports, football don't seem to care much about the ADAMs system. Are SKY just being used to highlight a bigger problem with managing sports teams in general and how they operate with Drs and their medical practices.
That's the tragically comical thing. Many riders who've joined Sky from 'old school' continental teams have gone to great lengths to gush over how professional the team and how it is light years ahead of others in it's approach and everyone is now copying the template etc.0 -
Out of interest did the MPs ask UKAD how the record keeping compared to other sports organisation and teams they investigate? If not are they fulfilling their brief to look at drug use in sport as opposed to a single issue? Also, UKAD have been accused at this same hearing if not being fit for purpose - have they even looked in this much depth at TUE use in any other sport?0
-
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?
Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.
Wow!0 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?
Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.
No you can't. Chris Boardman had to retire as the drugs that could treat his osteoporosis? were banned and he could nt get a TUE for them. Some yank master riders have recently been fighting bans for taking testosterone which I think they might have won.
Remember that theoretically, a TUE isn't just rubber stamped than way they do, it is meant to go to a 3 man committee and get approved after scrutiny.0 -
It's not really surprising if you look into the process (and it's followed through properly). The TUE system is designed to allow athletes to take things that would otherwise be banned because they have a medical requirement. This means they have to show that the medication they are applying for is required, is the best option available, will not provide an unfair advantage and so on. Theoretically this means that you could get a TUE for EPO, but the likelihood of someone requiring EPO and being able to compete at the top level of a WADA-compliant sport are vanishingly small, however the rules are in place in a way where it can happen if needed.pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.
Wow!
It's a good system and should be in place in the form it is. Athletes shouldn't be stopped from doing their job by something treatable anymore than I should be. You obviously need to be careful with what is allowed, but as long as it is properly policed then it's the right system. The problem is usually proper policing.0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?
Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.
No you can't. Chris Boardman had to retire as the drugs that could treat his osteoporosis? were banned and he could nt get a TUE for them. Some yank master riders have recently been fighting bans for taking testosterone which I think they might have won.
Remember that theoretically, a TUE isn't just rubber stamped than way they do, it is meant to go to a 3 man committee and get approved after scrutiny.
Yes, you can. I never said TUEs are rubber stamped or always issued. The fact that Boardman was turned down does not mean that you cannot get a TUE for testosterone. It just means that his application was turned down.0 -
They've got hold of a thread and they are pulling. If it were football I think everyone here would be cheering them on.Pross wrote:Out of interest did the MPs ask UKAD how the record keeping compared to other sports organisation and teams they investigate? If not are they fulfilling their brief to look at drug use in sport as opposed to a single issue? Also, UKAD have been accused at this same hearing if not being fit for purpose - have they even looked in this much depth at TUE use in any other sport?0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:However, I am yet to see anyone, anywhere come up with a viable scenario to explain why the team would risk giving someone this specific, banned medication, that in a matter of a very few hours, became legal again.
With the unlikelihood of any clarification being forthcoming, such might aid to move the debate forward.
They didn't actually know the rules and assumed that OOC period started at the end of the race.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:However, I am yet to see anyone, anywhere come up with a viable scenario to explain why the team would risk giving someone this specific, banned medication, that in a matter of a very few hours, became legal again.
With the unlikelihood of any clarification being forthcoming, such might aid to move the debate forward.
They didn't actually know the rules and assumed that OOC period started at the end of the race.
In most cases such as this one, the most obvious scenario is likely the one that happened. Mystery bag contents, anti-mucus medicines, disappearing team busses, obstructing the UKAD investigation, misleading answers from the team boss who has a fanatical eye for detail all point to one thing unfortunately.0 -
Dan Roan at the BBC now proudly posting videos on Twitter of SBW being harrassed/doorstepped by 'journalists' outside his family home..............irrespective of unanswered questions about 'the package' (perceived or genuine), this really isn't on, is it?0
-
pedro118118 wrote:Dan Roan at the BBC now proudly posting videos on Twitter of SBW being harrassed/doorstepped by 'journalists' outside his family home..............irrespective of unanswered questions about 'the package' (perceived or genuine), this really isn't on, is it?
Agree, well out of order to do this. Knowing full well that the road is private, he pure and simply did it to get a reaction - like the one they filmed.
In my opinion, it damages Roan as a journalist to resort to tricks like this.0 -
Can anyone remember anyone getting an answer about anything from doorstepping? It's just cheap tabloid stuff.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Dan Roan at the BBC now proudly posting videos on Twitter of SBW being harrassed/doorstepped by 'journalists' outside his family home..............irrespective of unanswered questions about 'the package' (perceived or genuine), this really isn't on, is it?
Agree, well out of order to do this. Knowing full well that the road is private, he pure and simply did it to get a reaction - like the one they filmed.
In my opinion, it damages Roan as a journalist to resort to tricks like this.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:
They've got hold of a thread and they are pulling. If it were football I think everyone here would be cheering them on.Pross wrote:Out of interest did the MPs ask UKAD how the record keeping compared to other sports organisation and teams they investigate? If not are they fulfilling their brief to look at drug use in sport as opposed to a single issue? Also, UKAD have been accused at this same hearing if not being fit for purpose - have they even looked in this much depth at TUE use in any other sport?
Or they've allowed others to guide them away and set the agenda?
Don't get me wrong, BC and Sky are beginning to look a disorganised shower at best but I can't help thinking they are looking for low hanging fruit and potentially ignoring what has fallen in the floor (e.g. as you mention football are they looking at the shoddy record keeping in a sport with so much money that appears to be leading to high profile whereabouts failures?). I reckon if they delved into any other sport with the same vigour they been lured into looking at this case they would find exactly the same problems but cycling (understandably with its history) gives them an easy target without upsetting to many influential people.0 -
Doorstepping is just a cheap trick to get tomorrows frontpage/backpage photo. Why a BBC journalist feels the need to do it I don't know but he's not the first.0
-
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:pedro118118 wrote:Sorry, that's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read here or anywhere with regard to this. I can see you are desperate to divert attention from this but exactly the same logic would be applied to every PED and it's patently ridiculous to suggest it.
Eh? Aren't we talking about substances, which are ordinarily not permitted (in competition), unless a rider has a TUE? That can hardly be applied to every PED.
It's actually the method of administration at question. It was posited that Wiggins could inject as much triamcinolone as he wanted OOC and be within the rules. This is not the case. Injections have to be medically justified and no better alternatives must exist. The UCI must be notified. This currently applies to every injection, PED or not, and I'm pretty certain that rule existed in 2011 when these rules were introduced.
It has now been suggested that medically justified could be applied to using injections for recovery, or weight loss, which is patently stupid. The same reasoning could be applied to a application for a TUE for EPO. Of course the phrase isn't just medically justified when it comes to injections, it's this (from the current rules):
"The injection must be medically justified based on best practice. Justification includes physical examination by a certified medical doctor and an appropriately documented diagnosis, medication and route of administration"
Best practice for weight loss or recovery is not injecting anything. It is a desperate attempt to defend something that was wrong.
But surely there are many PEDs, which are banned. With or without a TUE. In or out of competion. No?
Technically no. You can get a TUE for anything if you have a medical need for it. that's the point of the TUE system.
No you can't. Chris Boardman had to retire as the drugs that could treat his osteoporosis? were banned and he could nt get a TUE for them. Some yank master riders have recently been fighting bans for taking testosterone which I think they might have won.
Remember that theoretically, a TUE isn't just rubber stamped than way they do, it is meant to go to a 3 man committee and get approved after scrutiny.
I thought Boardman just chose not to seek a TUE?0 -
Boardman definitely made a request to the UCI for an exemption for testosterone - which they refused0
