JiffyGate....No Charges!!

pinno

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

It can really affect your performance if your eyes are poor:

[Festina affair] "Zülle admitted taking EPO. Zülle said he took it to satisfy his sponsors. He also said he was deprived of his spectacles during the police interview."

StillGoing

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

there has to be a line somewhere. (or nowhere) I think improving lung function in an endurance sport is beyond where i would draw that line.

I have no opinion on diabetes.

We need to remember that elite sport is Elite sport and the participants should be elite not chemicaly or biologicaly improved. I cant wait for Gene doping to become mainstream......

It isn't improving lung function in the terms that you suggest. It is putting the athlete back on the level playing field with other competitors that don't have lung issues. I think you need to consult with a few more articles around sport regulations, disability acts and reasonable adjustments. It is the same as a rider with one arm and one leg missing would be able to compete if they had prosthetic limbs that enabled them to achieve similar performance to an able-bodied rider. You know, just as they do in some athletic events allowing runners with blades to compete against athletes with no disability.

kingstongraham

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

there has to be a line somewhere. (or nowhere) I think improving lung function in an endurance sport is beyond where i would draw that line.

I have no opinion on diabetes.

We need to remember that elite sport is Elite sport and the participants should be elite not chemicaly or biologicaly improved. I cant wait for Gene doping to become mainstream......

It isn't improving lung function in the terms that you suggest. It is putting the athlete back on the level playing field with other competitors that don't have lung issues. I think you need to consult with a few more articles around sport regulations, disability acts and reasonable adjustments. It is the same as a rider with one arm and one leg missing would be able to compete if they had prosthetic limbs that enabled them to achieve similar performance to an able-bodied rider. You know, just as they do in some athletic events allowing runners with blades to compete against athletes with no disability.

Let's not go there - that's another area where the line is not easily drawn.

It isn't an easy line to draw, but obviously there need to be rules, otherwise you could argue that someone with a lower haematocrit should be allowed to level the playing field somehow.

That's why doping is a rules thing, not an ethics thing.

rick_chasey

Russians are good at this, aren't they?

Pross

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

there has to be a line somewhere. (or nowhere) I think improving lung function in an endurance sport is beyond where i would draw that line.

I have no opinion on diabetes.

We need to remember that elite sport is Elite sport and the participants should be elite not chemicaly or biologicaly improved. I cant wait for Gene doping to become mainstream......

It isn't improving lung function in the terms that you suggest. It is putting the athlete back on the level playing field with other competitors that don't have lung issues.

It’s not even that though, it’s only putting the athlete back to their own natural state when not suffering from symptoms. As far as I’m aware no allergy / asthma medication is improving the normal function of a patient just restoring the norm. The stated (though disputed) performance enhancement is the weight loss element but with a prescription an athlete can benefit from that OOC in any case with no TUE. That’s why I struggle to see anything dodgy in using it in competition. Why go through a formal process during a race for something that helps you lose weight when you’ve had months of training where you could have done it more easily?

larkim

I can potentially draw a line between allergy prevention (as in, it's not your fault if you happen to cycle through a cloud of pollen to which you are allergic) and asthma prevention, where there is at least a reasonable argument that being born asthmatic is just like being born with genetic limitations on your VO2 max, or being only 5ft2, or having one leg 4 inch shorter than the other - even if countering the asthma is putting your respiratory systems back on full capacity as if you didn't have asthma, you can argue that if you're asthmatic you should just "suck it up" and it causes you to be not very good at any sport which requires good oxygen throughput when you're exerting yourself.

Though personally I am happy for asthma attacks to be prevented so do give that a pass overall.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Russians are good at this, aren't they?

Distraction? Yes, they're very, very good.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

I can potentially draw a line between allergy prevention (as in, it's not your fault if you happen to cycle through a cloud of pollen to which you are allergic) and asthma prevention, where there is at least a reasonable argument that being born asthmatic is just like being born with genetic limitations on your VO2 max, or being only 5ft2, or having one leg 4 inch shorter than the other - even if countering the asthma is putting your respiratory systems back on full capacity as if you didn't have asthma, you can argue that if you're asthmatic you should just "suck it up" and it causes you to be not very good at any sport which requires good oxygen throughput when you're exerting yourself.

Though personally I am happy for asthma attacks to be prevented so do give that a pass overall.

A good rule of thumb is 'would they be taking this if they were not sportsmen'

Asthmatics who are not sportsmen take anti-asthma drugs. Some with bad allergies even have these injections.

Nobody who is not a sportsman takes drugs to improve their VO2.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Russians are good at this, aren't they?

It only seems to have worked in the UK, can anyone even remember any other athletes mentioned in the Fancy Bears hacks? I vaguely recall a US gymnast. Unfortunately the British media are happy to oblige and these days hard evidence counts for nothing in hard hitting, investigative journalism. Throw in a few publicity hungry MPs and job done.

Vino'sGhost

philthy3 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

tbh anything other than the senses, i.e. hearing or sight in cycling is an improvement too far. So i struggle with the argument that it just levels the playing field.

Why have you removed sight from the equation? It is performance enhancing to be able to see properly in lots of sports.

How do you feel about diabetics in sport?

there has to be a line somewhere. (or nowhere) I think improving lung function in an endurance sport is beyond where i would draw that line.

I have no opinion on diabetes.

We need to remember that elite sport is Elite sport and the participants should be elite not chemicaly or biologicaly improved. I cant wait for Gene doping to become mainstream......

It isn't improving lung function in the terms that you suggest. It is putting the athlete back on the level playing field with other competitors that don't have lung issues. I think you need to consult with a few more articles around sport regulations, disability acts and reasonable adjustments. It is the same as a rider with one arm and one leg missing would be able to compete if they had prosthetic limbs that enabled them to achieve similar performance to an able-bodied rider. You know, just as they do in some athletic events allowing runners with blades to compete against athletes with no disability.

Well, lets have a look at some disability acts and cases here in the UK and also from the ECJ, we'll start with the definition of disability shall we?

The Framework Directive 2000/78/EC look for the ECJ and Chacon Navas or easier for you to find and understand the Equality Act 2010 s.6, and amplified by Sch 1, Pt1 and by the additional Regulations AND also the guidance. Its all complicated stuff but in general the legislation adopts the medical model NOT the social. (can you see where were going with this yet?)

Some conditions are deemed as disabilities irrespective of wether they cause a person an impairment. These are blindness or partial sightedness, HIV, Multiple Sclerosis and cancer. Not allergies.So what next I hear you ask. Pull up a chair and I will tell you.

S6 tells us that for Wiggins to claim a disability (which he isn't) he would have to demonstrate a physical or mental impairment AND that the impairment would need to have a substantial AND LONG TERM adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

Guidance tells us that impairment is to be given its ordinary meaning so we can say that allergies which exacerbate asthma are an impairment to argue otherwise would be perverse.

BUT he must also show that his impairment had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out day to day activities. This is frequently known as the "functional requirement" prior to the Equality Act there was a list of Eight capacities that could affect day to day activities and it would all have ended there but the EA removed the exhaustive list to make it easier to claim so lets move on.

So could Wiggins argue that his day to day activities was cycling up a hill in July? Unlikely but he could look to the ECJ and Chacon Navas which i mentioned at the beginning. The ECJ stated that the impairment must hinder the participation of the person in professional life, suggesting that the definition does have more to do with work life than purely day to day activities. Phew says Wiggo. But what happens when a persons capacity to carry out normal day-to- day activities only occurs when he's at work??

Well interestingly this conundrum has been addressed by the EAT. and even more interestingly its all about occupational Asthma. The EAT held that as long as the symptoms were sufficient to affect day to day tasks it doesnt matter if this occurs in work (riding up a mountain in July in wiggins case) or at home. The guidance now reflects this. So far so good for Wiggins. (im ignoring the contractual and employment status of the rider / race organiser and focusing on general principles)

Lets get to the definition of Longterm EA Sch1 para2(1) if you're reading along. Has lasted or is likely to last at least 12 months, or likely to last for life. doctors and lawyers could argue the toss for ever on whether he meets the tests there but lets assume not. Good job for wiggins then that the Act caters for fluctuating effects but even then the twelve month rule counts. Since wiggins allegedly has an allergy to a specific type of grass that is only a problem one month a year he may have a challenge here too.

Assuming that he blags it this far we still have the requirement for it to be substantial, skipping through this bit we get to para 5 which Wiggins will like since it defines an impairment as having substantial adverse effect if measures are being taken to treat or correct it AND but for that it would be likely to have that effect. Likely is taken to mean "could well happen" so he might be in luck anyway.

Tomorrow Ill do a brief piece on the Duty to Make Adjustments.

Ive probable read more discrimination cases and law and than i ever wanted to but if you can help me out with more specifics next time instead of bandying words around it would be helpful.

sherer

Wiggins isn't claiming a disability.. he was suffering from Astma / allergies.. the team doc said the best drug is x, but to take that we need to apply for a TUE. They then sent all the correct paperwork off to the UCI who approved it.

No rules have been broken

DeVlaeminck

sherer wrote:

Wiggins isn't claiming a disability.. he was suffering from Astma / allergies.. the team doc said the best drug is x, but to take that we need to apply for a TUE. They then sent all the correct paperwork off to the UCI who approved it.

No rules have been broken

Look we don't know if rules have been broken because we don't know if he really needed that drug or if someone - Wiggins, Freeman, Brailsford or whoever - thought it would be convenient to exaggerate his asthma to have in competition access to what they believed was a performance enhancing drug.

There is some evidence pointing to Freeman/Sky abusing this drug. THe anonymous email accusing them of administering it to the TdF squad, the accusation the jiffy bag contained it, the missing medical records stolen laptop and failure to back them up, the order for more of the drug than Freeman has accounted for, Sutton's comments. No it isn't proof but taken together it's certainly inconvenient for Wiggins and I think it's enough for people like Piers Morgan to be confident Wiggins wont sue.

Is it really unlikely that the TUEs applications were at least in part motivated by a desire to enhance performance beyond preventing asthma symptoms? I mean 3 out of 3 coming prior to grand tours - do his symptoms only play up during an A race?

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Is it really unlikely that the TUEs applications were at least in part motivated by a desire to enhance performance beyond preventing asthma symptoms? I mean 3 out of 3 coming prior to grand tours - do his symptoms only play up during an A race?

It's a question of priorities. They are willing to gamble with the lesser races. Maybe he gets ill and has a bad day - they'll manage. But for the big race of the year? You need the best security available.

Ultimately all of this was all approved by the UCI. So unless they have actually fabricated or forged the documentation they sent to the UCI they're completely in the clear.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Is it really unlikely that the TUEs applications were at least in part motivated by a desire to enhance performance beyond preventing asthma symptoms? I mean 3 out of 3 coming prior to grand tours - do his symptoms only play up during an A race?

It's a question of priorities. They are willing to gamble with the lesser races. Maybe he gets ill and has a bad day - they'll manage. But for the big race of the year? You need the best security available.

Ultimately all of this was all approved by the UCI. So unless they have actually fabricated or forged the documentation they sent to the UCI they're completely in the clear.

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

redvision

Pross wrote:

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

Triamcinolone can reduce weight and body fat without losing power. So to a cyclist this is a pretty perfect drug.

As per skys moto...marginal gains :?

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

Pross wrote:

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

Triamcinolone can reduce weight and body fat without losing power. So to a cyclist this is a pretty perfect drug.

As per skys moto...marginal gains :?

Not that there is a shred of proof that they have, other than it being "convenient", but what is the sanction for using Triamcinolone out of competition?

Vino'sGhost

I recall reading something in the anti doping regs that’s went along the lines of it not mattering if it’s a proscribed substance or not, if the intention is to gain advantage.

I’ll look it up but the effect would potentially be problematic for sky even if they used the tue route to use the stuff. Would probably need some
Evidence of intent. Slippery stuff.

shortfall

Blazing Saddles wrote:

redvision wrote:

Pross wrote:

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

Triamcinolone can reduce weight and body fat without losing power. So to a cyclist this is a pretty perfect drug.

As per skys moto...marginal gains :?

Not that there is a shred of proof that they have, other than it being "convenient", but what is the sanction for using Triamcinolone out of competition?

There is no proof (although critics would argue that shoddy record keeping, a doctor who was "conveniently ill" at the time of the select committee, missing laptops and mysterious jiffy bags might have shed more light on this). However there is suspicion. Sky came into cycling on the back of the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport trumpeting their ethics (yes that word ethics). As I remember it there would be nobody in the team connected to doping, a no needles policy, no PED's and a new openness (others will correct me if I'm wrong). The public and press seemed to swallow it whole and when the victories kept pouring in all was well. The scourge of doping seemed to have been brought under control and suddenly a clean athlete could win the TDF. But we weren't getting the whole truth were we? Sky sent out a set of signals to the public about being whiter than white, but behind the scenes it seems that they were using needles, and they were using PEDs, albeit they claim perfectly within the rules. We wouldn't have ever known about this were it not for the Fancy Bears however so when it did start leaking out it looked bad. Why didn't Wiggins fess up to this at the time? How does the injecting of powerful drugs fit into a no needles and no PEDs ethical team? I think we know why, it would have looked dreadful and given a lie to everything they had claimed to be.

So while I agree there is no proof I think people are entitled to ask questions and draw their own conclusions about what is the most or least likely explanation If this was a criminal case then absolutely the accused would have the presumption of innocence and could not be convicted unless his guilt was beyond reasonable doubt. But it's not a criminal case and different rules apply. None of us know if Wiggins cheated or not but we are allowed to form opinions based on the available evidence and events, especially when viewed through the prism of Pro Cycling and the litany of previous doping scandals and denials.

larkim

I may be wrong here, but I've not come across anything in anti-doping rules which says that something which is not prohibited out of competition has to be judged against the purpose to which it is used or consumed. I may be wrong, and I can see how this could be viewed as a questionable activity ethically, but the ethics bit doesn't make it into the rulebook or the WADA code. The only reference to ethics or similar in the WADA code is in the criteria that are used to assess whether a drug should be on the banned list or not. Once they are on the banned list (or indeed have been deemed not to warrant being on the banned list) the ethics of the use are put to one side.

larkim

The only section in the WADA code in relation to performance enhancing use of a substance permitted out of competition that I can find is where the athlete takes the substance out of competition, but the test results from an in competition test show the presence of the substance.

I think this section refers, but I've not unpicked for myself the whole piece which uses some words and phrases which have very specific meanings within the WADA code:-

10.2.3
As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.

larkim

So if I'm reading the code correctly, Triamcinolone is a specified substance.

Therefore an AAF for it is not considered intentional doping if it is used out of competition. And there is no subclause requiring any consideration of whether it is used in a context related to sport performance.

So absolutely explicitly, use as much triamcinonlone as you want OOC, WADA explicitly doesn't care if you do it to enhance sporting performance.

(Unless I'm reading it all wrong!!)

Dorset_Boy

Shortfall - you need to go away and understand what a 'no-needles policy' actually means. The definition IIRC has been posted / linked to within this or the other thread.
You are no alone in your ignorance on this, and it would really help if some people actually read up and understood some things before spouting off.

Redvision - there is ONE coach, not many coaches (ie Shane Sutton) who has suggested they may have garnered the system. He is also pretty pissed off at the way he has been treated by British Cycling. So stop falsifying the facts to pretend there is a greater weight of people putting forward an opinion than is the reality. It doesn't help your argument.

shortfall

Dorset Boy wrote:

Shortfall - you need to go away and understand what a 'no-needles policy' actually means. The definition IIRC has been posted / linked to within this or the other thread.
You are no alone in your ignorance on this, and it would really help if some people actually read up and understood some things before spouting off.

Redvision - there is ONE coach, not many coaches (ie Shane Sutton) who has suggested they may have garnered the system. He is also pretty pissed off at the way he has been treated by British Cycling. So stop falsifying the facts to pretend there is a greater weight of people putting forward an opinion than is the reality. It doesn't help your argument.

My understanding is that the UCI rule outlaws the use of injections "without a clear medical need". If I am wrong about this I am happy to be corrected. However I am talking about needles with specific reference to Team Sky. Bradley Wiggins said in his autobiography that he had never received injections. To ordinary members of the public who think you're riding for an ethical team with a strict no doping policy, it is quite clear how that statement is going to be interpreted.

jimmythecuckoo

Rick Chasey wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Who was the credible internal source?

I'd love it to be Froome, in return for a softer ride in the press.

Or a reduced suspension

RichN95.

Shortfall wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Shortfall - you need to go away and understand what a 'no-needles policy' actually means. The definition IIRC has been posted / linked to within this or the other thread.
You are no alone in your ignorance on this, and it would really help if some people actually read up and understood some things before spouting off.

Redvision - there is ONE coach, not many coaches (ie Shane Sutton) who has suggested they may have garnered the system. He is also pretty pissed off at the way he has been treated by British Cycling. So stop falsifying the facts to pretend there is a greater weight of people putting forward an opinion than is the reality. It doesn't help your argument.

My understanding is that the UCI rule outlaws the use of injections "without a clear medical need". If I am wrong about this I am happy to be corrected. However I am talking about needles with specific reference to Team Sky. Bradley Wiggins said in his autobiography that he had never received injections. To ordinary members of the public who think you're riding for an ethical team with a strict no doping policy, it is quite clear how that statement is going to be interpreted.

People really need to stop treating autobiographies as though they are legal depositions.

Pross

redvision wrote:

Pross wrote:

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

Triamcinolone can reduce weight and body fat without losing power. So to a cyclist this is a pretty perfect drug.

As per skys moto...marginal gains :?

But that ignores my question. Why use it in competition where you have to submit a TUE application when it can be used OOC without a TUE? I can't remember the 2011 race programme Wiggins undertook but I'm sure he'd have had a few weeks in the Canary Islands ahead of Dauphine where a dodgy doctor could have just given him a simple prescription for the drug and he'd have been unlikely to regain the weight he lost during an intensive stage race, after all Millar claims it's a once a year drug due to its side effects. If you apply Occam's Razor surely the most likely reason for using it in competition is that was when it was medically needed.

larkim

Pross wrote:

redvision wrote:

Pross wrote:

Also, is there any alleged performance benefit other that weight loss? If not why would you go to the trouble of doing it at that time where a TUE is needed rather than during the many training blocks? I can't imagine there was a lot of fat left to lose that close to the start of the Tour.

Triamcinolone can reduce weight and body fat without losing power. So to a cyclist this is a pretty perfect drug.

As per skys moto...marginal gains :?

But that ignores my question. Why use it in competition where you have to submit a TUE application when it can be used OOC without a TUE? I can't remember the 2011 race programme Wiggins undertook but I'm sure he'd have had a few weeks in the Canary Islands ahead of Dauphine where a dodgy doctor could have just given him a simple prescription for the drug and he'd have been unlikely to regain the weight he lost during an intensive stage race, after all Millar claims it's a once a year drug due to its side effects. If you apply Occam's Razor surely the most likely reason for using it in competition is that was when it was medically needed.

Exactly. You get a TUE for it so you can use it as you cycle through clouds of pollen which are known to cause allergic reactions in the recipient. You use it in one GT, find it is effective (or at least, not counter-productive) and then repeat that approach for subsequent GTs which are identified as having the potential to have the conditions which give rise to allergic reactions.

If you were only interested in weight loss performance advantage, you'd do it in training, well before the event so that your power to weight was at the enhanced level the day the GT starts.

I don't know enough about the drug to comment whether you'd "need" it throughout the GT to sustain the weight loss advantages, but that would surprise me.

Vino'sGhost

Why is it bandied about that riders wouldnt take XYZ drug because it offers no benefit? They only need to think it does

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Why is it bandied about that riders wouldnt take XYZ drug because it offers no benefit? They only need to think it does

I'm not arguing there is no benefit (although there is some dispute by experts over that) just that if, as Millar says (and his word on everything else seems to be accepted as gospel), it isn't something you would use regularly why not do it OOC when it isn't banned in any case?

r0bh

larkim wrote:

Exactly. You get a TUE for it so you can use it as you cycle through clouds of pollen which are known to cause allergic reactions in the recipient. You use it in one GT, find it is effective (or at least, not counter-productive) and then repeat that approach for subsequent GTs which are identified as having the potential to have the conditions which give rise to allergic reactions.

If you were only interested in weight loss performance advantage, you'd do it in training, well before the event so that your power to weight was at the enhanced level the day the GT starts.

I don't know enough about the drug to comment whether you'd "need" it throughout the GT to sustain the weight loss advantages, but that would surprise me.

And notably you don't use it at the 2011 Vuelta. If this were some systematic TUE application scheme for GTs why wouldn't you do it for the Vuelta too? Now the Vuelta is late in the season where there is much less risk from pollen... just saying.