Legal doping
-
Totally agree, rule should be that any TUEs are open to public scrutiny and your opponents know what you're on. Transparency trumps medical privacy; if you want to compete in front of millions of people and be paid millions of dollars, the public/fans have a right to know.
In his instance, know that your asthma that you've had all your life but never mentioned before in several books and zillions of interviews, just happened to flare up right at the most convenient time before the 3 biggest races of your career, so badly that you needed fucking horse steroids, to treat a pollen allergy that happened to occur at different times and different places depending on when and where the Grand Tours were. Horse steroids that any normal doctor would only prescribe an asthmatic that was basically an invalid due to the severity of their condition, and only then after exhausting every other avenue.
Wiggins will never come back from this in the court of public opinion. He'll be lucky to keep his knighthood. One BBC commentator summed it up very well when he said its a bit like the tax arrangements of multinational corporations; legal in the the letter of the law, but doesn't stop people being mightily pissed off when it all comes to light, and rightly so.
-
Look I agree that Wiggins has been a bit of a knob over all of this (and it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve thought he was a knob) but I believe him when he says he received the TUEs not to get an advantage, but to get back onto a level playing field. From what I understand he’s a bit of a worrier. Going into the biggest races of the year as a favourite he’d be acutely aware of any little symptom of potential ill health and do whatever it look legally to ensure he wasn’t affected.
I’m no professional cyclist but I do suffer from asthma and hay fever. If I sense even the slightest bit of aggravation before a race I’ve trained extensively for, I dose up fully as a result of being slightly paranoid that I’ll be hamstrung in my ability to perform my best. I think this is where Wiggins is coming from.
That said, I do think there are others in the peloton who probably exploit the whole TUE process; I’m probably in favour of more transparency or an overhaul of what products fall under the TUE umbrella (filtering out any potential borderline cases like corticosteroids)
-
Yeah but its been well-documented by both doctors (first link) and former dopers (second link) that its doesn't make you as good as a healthy person, it makes you significantly better. Kenacort is catabolic, so recipients immediately drop 1-2kgs of the residual body fat that no amount of training /diet can shift. Considering these guys are all emaciated 60kg stick figures to begin with, the weight loss alone is a huge advantage at the elite level where margins are so fine.
-
@TeWaio I agree. The fault lies with the procedures that allow the drug, Sky (and Wiggins) are just using the 'loophole' to their advantage.
However, both Sky and Wiggins would know that this drug provides them with more than just a level playing field so their self-righteousness at times regarding drug enhanced performances reeks of hypocrisy. -
@Crucial said in Legal doping:
@TeWaio I agree. The fault lies with the procedures that allow the drug, Sky (and Wiggins) are just using the 'loophole' to their advantage.
However, both Sky and Wiggins would know that this drug provides them with more than just a level playing field so their self-righteousness at times regarding drug enhanced performances reeks of hypocrisy.Total hypocrisy.
Back in 2013, team sky's doctor at the time told a journalist. "We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf"
When now the evidence shows they did exactly the opposite
Pursuit of Tour de France glory costs Team Sky their idealism
Transparency put aside following Wiggins TUE revelations
-
Sky boss not convincing: http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/37472728
-
It's the book and Sky's high-handed manner that have really killed this argument for them, and damn good job.
If they had been a bit more straight up in the past, I'm sure we would all have had a better idea about the extent to which they were prepared to take advantage of potential marginal gains. Legal? Yes.
Ethical? If so, why is this new news? Why does it contradict statements from the past? Because you're playing the system even though you said you weren't.
So, in summary, fuck 'em.
-
this is amazing, just tears the house of cards to shreds
DAME WIGGY AND HIS WONKY TUES
September 27, 2016
This is brief and there are many more questions I believe Team Sky should provide answers for, but for now, let’s ask them to chew on these.The 2011 TUE
What is known
Applied for 30th June
Granted by Doctor Zorzoli 30th June
Examination to justify application 2nd July
‘Life long condition’
What should be made known
-
Why was the exemption granted before the relevant medical examination?
-
What changes in performance data did the Team Sky coaching staff observe compared to previous Tours without the Triamcinolone? Were there positive performance gains?
-
If the condition was truly a lifelong one, why had this treatment never been used before?
-
Were Wiggins and the Team Sky medical and coaching staff aware that triamcinolone was a potent PED with a history of abuse in pro cycling?
The 2012 TUE
What is known
Medical examination done 15th May, confirming nothing more than a lifelong condition
Application not made until 26th June
The TUE states ‘Event – Dauphine’ – this finished on the 10th June, 16 days before the date of the TUE
Wiggins own accounts of the run-up to the Tour were that he was in great health, great condition and ready to go. According to Wiggins, his medical team also knew this, stating“you're on track here, you're the favourite to win this race, now we need to make sure the next three weeks... is there anything we can help with at the moment?”
What should be made known
-
If the examination on 15th May genuinely diagnosed a serious allergy/asthma incident, would that not have warranted treatment being given for the upcoming Dauphine?
-
How was Wiggins able to win the Dauphine in commanding style, if he was suffering any form of allergy/asthma diagnosed on the 15th May?
-
If he wasn’t suffering any form of allergy/asthma during the Dauphine, when did the condition start pre-tour and why was there no examination to confirm this?
-
Why did the medical team say he was on track and the favourite, if they knew (because of the examination on 15th May) that he was suffering from allergies/asthma?
-
Did performance data and Wiggin’s subjective feedback from 2011 treatment provide motivation for seeking TUE for triamcinolone?
-
If triamcinolone wasn’t helpful to performance in 2011, why was it sought in 2012?
-
Why, and precisely why, was this particular treatment sought, given that it is so rarely used in normal medical practice, and then only for very severe episodes?
Notes:
Having a life long allergy does not mean continual symptoms unless continually exposed to the allergen in question. This needs to be probed further re’ Wiggins and his actual health pre-Tour.
In the interests of transparency;
I have coached two riders who have served doping bans. Pascal Lino received a 2-month ban for amphetamine use prior to my coaching him. Before taking him on as a client, I explained that the training I would give him would negate any need to take anything and that I was 100% anti-doping. I worked with him for two years.
I coached David Millar in his last 18 months as an amateur and 1st year as a professional. His doping ban occurred after I was no longer his coach. To the best of my knowledge he was clean in the period I worked with him.
Personally I was prescribed prednisone in Jan 2015 for pneumonia that had not responded to 3 courses of antibiotics. I commenced racing 4 weeks after the course had finished (I could not have won the Tour of Romandie).
That’s enough for now.
© Dave Smith 2016
-
