More trouble for Team SKY.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

sherer wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

After yesterday's little exchange, the BBC finally have something new, today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/43469788

Be interesting to see how the non-blinkered fraternity view this. Spin or ignore.

Ive never seen anything wrong with the TUE in principal just the blatant abuse of it in order to cheat.

is it actually being abused though ? Even the fancy bears leaks didn't exactly reveal wide spread use of TUEs and the UCI put some stats out that said there was a very small number of TUEs over the last few seasons

It certainly was being abused. thats the opinion of other team sky doctors, the coach and the mps investigating. Its a little more difficult to abuse now apparently.

Since the wheels on your bus appear to be going around again, here are those TUEs numbers again:-

Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 20

Looks like you might have had a point.......................in 2009.

Not much sign of abuse throughout this decade and as for the last 3 years and those last 3 TDF wins......

bompington

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

2fast748 wrote:

It's his (Froome's) kidneys fault:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... rumbles-on

Apparently its a very rare disease that has no symptoms other than it causes the bladder to manufacture and excrete pharmaceuticals. Its taken this long because the cause is a bite from a terrified rabbit that was being fed to a snake.

This is very rare and the medical team is looking to hear from other multiple tour winners who may have been bitten by a rabbit in childhood. Unfortunately no other tour winnner is willing to testify even if they too have been bitten by a pet of any type. So it looks like well have to take his word for it

Do you have any idea how petty and childish you sound in this post?

Do you have any idea how little i care about you or your opinion? it was meant as tongue in cheek and as ridiculous as some of the other cycling excuses.

Enough to feel you have to reply, evidently. After all it's all about winning, isn't it?

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

sherer wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

After yesterday's little exchange, the BBC finally have something new, today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/43469788

Be interesting to see how the non-blinkered fraternity view this. Spin or ignore.

Ive never seen anything wrong with the TUE in principal just the blatant abuse of it in order to cheat.

is it actually being abused though ? Even the fancy bears leaks didn't exactly reveal wide spread use of TUEs and the UCI put some stats out that said there was a very small number of TUEs over the last few seasons

It certainly was being abused. thats the opinion of other team sky doctors, the coach and the mps investigating. Its a little more difficult to abuse now apparently.

Since the wheels on your bus appear to be going around again, here are those TUEs numbers again:-

Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 20

Looks like you might have had a point.......................in 2009.

Not much sign of abuse throughout this decade and as for the last 3 years and those last 3 TDF wins......

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

blazing_saddles

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

That would be the same former doctor who thought Froome should have applied for a TUE for his asthma, instead of using his puffer?

No TUEs since 2014.
No evidence produced to back up prior abuse claims.
No abuse, except of the taxpayer's money.

bobmcstuff

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

sherer wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

After yesterday's little exchange, the BBC finally have something new, today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/43469788

Be interesting to see how the non-blinkered fraternity view this. Spin or ignore.

Ive never seen anything wrong with the TUE in principal just the blatant abuse of it in order to cheat.

is it actually being abused though ? Even the fancy bears leaks didn't exactly reveal wide spread use of TUEs and the UCI put some stats out that said there was a very small number of TUEs over the last few seasons

It certainly was being abused. thats the opinion of other team sky doctors, the coach and the mps investigating. Its a little more difficult to abuse now apparently.

Since the wheels on your bus appear to be going around again, here are those TUEs numbers again:-

Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 20

Looks like you might have had a point.......................in 2009.

Not much sign of abuse throughout this decade and as for the last 3 years and those last 3 TDF wins......

The main reason for the drop between '09 and '10 is the removal of salbutamol from the WADA banned list- previously it had required a TUE.

Clearly still a big drop from 2010 to the present anyway, but it's deceptive to include the 2009 numbers because the substance requiring all those TUEs didn't stop being used - it just didn't need a TUE any more.

larkim

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

Agree with that to a degree - so that begs a question, do you think with fewer than 1 TUE being authorised per week amongst the pro peleton that the UCI is incapable of following its processes to ensure that the sign off panel is satisfied of the genuine need of the authorisation? I'm not saying the blame would lie at the UCI's door if TUEs were being abused, but it strikes me that with a low incidence and high public consciousness about it that it was highly likely that this was a fairly robust process today. That's not to say that it might have been easier to fly under the radar in the past and get something rubber stamped, but I don't have any evidence of that.

Vino'sGhost

Blazing Saddles wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

That would be the same former doctor who thought Froome should have applied for a TUE for his asthma, instead of using his puffer?

No TUEs since 2014.
No evidence produced to back up prior abuse claims.
No abuse, except of the taxpayer's money.

All the other doctors at sky were concerned enough to change login details and not share them.

gsk82

bobmcstuff wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

sherer wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

After yesterday's little exchange, the BBC finally have something new, today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/43469788

Be interesting to see how the non-blinkered fraternity view this. Spin or ignore.

Ive never seen anything wrong with the TUE in principal just the blatant abuse of it in order to cheat.

is it actually being abused though ? Even the fancy bears leaks didn't exactly reveal wide spread use of TUEs and the UCI put some stats out that said there was a very small number of TUEs over the last few seasons

It certainly was being abused. thats the opinion of other team sky doctors, the coach and the mps investigating. Its a little more difficult to abuse now apparently.

Since the wheels on your bus appear to be going around again, here are those TUEs numbers again:-

Year TUEs granted
2009 239
2010 97
2011 55
2012 46
2013 31
2014 25
2015 13
2016 15
2017 20

Looks like you might have had a point.......................in 2009.

Not much sign of abuse throughout this decade and as for the last 3 years and those last 3 TDF wins......

The main reason for the drop between '09 and '10 is the removal of salbutamol from the WADA banned list- previously it had required a TUE.

Clearly still a big drop from 2010 to the present anyway, but it's deceptive to include the 2009 numbers because the substance requiring all those TUEs didn't stop being used - it just didn't need a TUE any more.

That's not really the point though. I've posted the link to the above in a few places and it always gets that same response. 20 TUEs in a year is nothing and completely disproves the widely reported "widespread abuse of TUEs" statement.

RichN95.

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all in
dicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

So what then is the acceptable number or percentage of people cheating the tue system to dope or doping without cheating the tue system.

blazing_saddles

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all in
dicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

So what then is the acceptable number or percentage of people cheating the tue system to dope or doping without cheating the tue system.

100 Tue cheats = 1 Valverde, on the current rate of exchange. 8)

larkim

Zero is of course the acceptable number.

I think what's being pointed out is that there seems to have been a myth that since things were cleaned up (a bit), TUEs have become the mass doping route of choice. I'd find it utterly implausible that even 50% of the TUEs were founded in an attempt to dope, so whether or not there are some dodgy ones in there the myth about TUEs being the root of all evil is busted.

Absolutely 100%, all fake, dodgy, fraudulent TUEs should be exposed and rooted out. But beyond the questions raised over Wiggins' TUE for kenacort, where else is the smoking gun?

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all in
dicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

So what then is the acceptable number or percentage of people cheating the tue system to dope or doping without cheating the tue system.

Switching it around a little, what proportion of limited resources should be used to investigate the 20 people who have a TUE to see if they should not have been granted it, and how much on investigating other forms of doping?

Obviously, if there is evidence that a rider has abused the TUE system, they should serve a ban, but there must be avenues that will produce more valuable results. The less commented on part of the DCMS committee report was about how underfunded UKAD has been.

larkim

^^^^^This, every day

rick_chasey

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

sherer

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

don't forget the fact the Spanish didn't even bother to investigate Valverde and even backed up Contador when he failed a test.
After all the money spent on the CMS enquiry, they still failed to uncover a smoking gun

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

Would it actually be 20 people or do individuals require a TUE for every time they bend to use medication (other than maybe those that have a constant need). Also, how many diabetics are there likely to be or others that require a permanent TUE to compete? The number who may be gaming the system is dropping all the time. It sums up how ridiculous the DCMS conclusions were in context.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all indicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

Would it actually be 20 people or do individuals require a TUE for every time they bend to use medication (other than maybe those that have a constant need). Also, how many diabetics are there likely to be or others that require a permanent TUE to compete? The number who may be gaming the system is dropping all the time. It sums up how ridiculous the DCMS conclusions were in context.

We saw from the Fancy Bears hack that some people are given long term TUEs for incurable conditions, such as diabetes. Some of them can be very long - four years. They probably has these before entering the elite testing pool. I doubt anyone has one of these for anything strong.
We also saw that Froome and Wiggins, for example, had TUEs for a limited period and limited dosage.
So it's probably different people with short term usage mixed in with a few renewals.

From the 15 in 2016 we know three of them - Simon Yates (asthma drugs), Jack Bobridge (arthritis relief) and Emma Johanssen (drip after a crash)

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

iainf72

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

Most informed opinion?

Can you point me at this? Because it doesn't exist.

If I could tell you exactly what happened, how much of your own money would you bet on the above being the complete truth?

redvision

This is interesting:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racin ... est-373963

Mybad, should have put this in the froome thread.

redvision

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

redvision wrote:

The abuse of Tues is not necessarily about the number, it's about whether there was a medical need for such treatment. Shane Sutton, a former sky doctor and the enquiry report all in
dicated sky were using Tues when there was no medical need, hence abusing the system.

But twenty is still a small number.

Let's assume that every single one of those twenty is fraudulent. 20 people playing the system out of 1300 riders still isn't a problem. There will be more than 20 actually doping.

So what then is the acceptable number or percentage of people cheating the tue system to dope or doping without cheating the tue system.

Switching it around a little, what proportion of limited resources should be used to investigate the 20 people who have a TUE to see if they should not have been granted it, and how much on investigating other forms of doping?

Obviously, if there is evidence that a rider has abused the TUE system, they should serve a ban, but there must be avenues that will produce more valuable results. The less commented on part of the DCMS committee report was about how underfunded UKAD has been.

The report and the statements from former drs and Sutton have made it quite clear that Sky were pushing the limits on TUES though, and using them for performance gains and not for medical reasons. At least until 2014 when things tightened up a bit.

One thing which hasn't been mentioned yet, if the report does have info which can prove categorically that Sky riders were being prescribed medication for performance gains rather than actual health problems could that not be construed as malpractice?

bobmcstuff

edit - moved to Froome thread

Vino'sGhost

iainf72 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

Most informed opinion?

Can you point me at this? Because it doesn't exist.

If I could tell you exactly what happened, how much of your own money would you bet on the above being the complete truth?

It does exist in the form of statements made by Sutton and the sky team doctors, it’s in the select committee report amongst others.

I’m sorry for you.

kingstongraham

redvision wrote:

The report and the statements from former drs and Sutton have made it quite clear that Sky were pushing the limits on TUES though, and using them for performance gains and not for medical reasons. At least until 2014 when things tightened up a bit.

One thing which hasn't been mentioned yet, if the report does have info which can prove categorically that Sky riders were being prescribed medication for performance gains rather than actual health problems could that not be construed as malpractice?

The GMC are investigating.

rick_chasey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

So it’s about the ban is it? Not about the rules?

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which bugs Vino more, Valverde refusing to admit he was involved in the industrial doping that Fuentes was dishing out to his clients (of which Valverde was one) or that Wiggins had a legit TUE that was allowed by the authorities that he's gone on telly to discuss?

Valverde got a ban. Wiggins has by most informed opinion cheated by using the tue process to gain access to non essential pharmaceutical products.

He’s a cheat

So it’s about the ban is it? Not about the rules?

There are some serious dual standards here Rick and also the question of people insulting intelligence. I appreciate you and many others are partisan to the point of self harm. I dare say peole can cling to the rules not broken if he got a doctor to give him the tue etc etc but thats like saying rapes fine if you can weedle out of it.

kingstongraham

No it isn't.

blazing_saddles

KingstonGraham wrote:

No it isn't.

Yes there is.
Guess who though?

Vino'sGhost

ok i get it, dopings fine if you can get away with it. (so long as your British)

its a confused place in here