Doping

In the past the TUE system was abused in cycling, but all the available evidence suggests that is no longer the case. If you don't have such a system in place then you get into the ridiculous situation where riders are unable to compete because they can't take a medicine that will treat eminently treatable ailments, i.e. like with Vaughters' wasp sting in, I think, the 1999 Tour.

If 'it's within the rules' is the new 'never tested positive,' then we might as well give up on the idea of clean sport.

I've been quiet on this because I'm not entirely sure what to think, but that's straight BS. Rules can, and are, changed to create a state of cycling desired by those who have interests in it. Having not broken the rules means you've followed those rules as set. If we don't like them, we push to have them changed.

On the other hand, "Never tested positive" is a phrase which only states that one hasn't been caught for breaking the rules.

The rules appear anything but black and white: there's a grey area in between where certain substances are permitted to be taken under certain circumstances. David Brailsford always conceded there's ambiguity, and that Sky's policy is to ensure they operate on the right side of that.
That's not to say I'm comfortable with all these riders having a pop at Wiggins. I doubt there's a cyclist on the planet that's not on some drug or other, possibly ingesting things that are legal now but maybe once were not, or will not be in the future.

There is a very clear process for establishing if someone can take a substance with a TUE. That's not grey, it's laid out in black and white.

In the interview he even admitted it was preventative - this is outwith the rules.

^{[citation needed]}

Most medication for chronic illness is not to make it better but to stop it getting worse. In other words, it's preventative. Prophylaxis is a normal part of chronic disease management. Sir Bradley's TUE passes the first test once he has established that he has a chronic medical condition and that the substance is an appropriate treatment.

There are question marks over the second and third tests, but the TUEC thought they had been passed.

If 'it's within the rules' is the new 'never tested positive,' then we might as well give up on the idea of clean sport.

What drugs are you taking, if you can't tell the difference between 'law-abiding' and 'fugitive from justice'?

There are question marks over the second and third tests, but the TUEC thought they had been passed.

What questions?

Does anyone understand how granting a TUE for IM triamcinolone was squared with the 'highly unlikely to produce any additional enhancement of performance' rule?

What questions?

People are claiming that it is performance enhancing, and that alternative effective therapies were available.

Then what's all the fuss about?

Your guess is as good as mine.

What's the suggestion with the private jet thing? That doping took place on board and Froome was at it too?

Sir Bradley's TUE passes the first test once he has established that he has a chronic medical condition and that the substance is an appropriate treatment.

Except it's not (an appropriate treatment). Lots of people suffer with hayfever, if intramuscular injections fixed it we'd all be rushing out to get them. He still hasn't provided any justification for the intramuscular injection element so the Marr interview hasn't changed my view at all: within the letter, but not within the spirit.

Isn't it perhaps a cost thing? If the NHS could afford them and they could be administered easily and safely, perhaps we'd be getting them? Is an intra-muscular injection the best treatment money can buy for that ailment?

Actually, if you're hayfever is bad enough, it can happen. A friend of mine had such an injection the year he did his A-levels (this was about 20 years ago, mind) and he was cleared of symptoms for over a year.

Really, as simple as that? Cyclists, both current and retired, passing negative comment; David Walsh sounding all doom and gloom; radio silence on the part of Team Sky, and from Brailsford in particular - all over an issue that you say is perfectly black and white? Come on...

Except it's not (an appropriate treatment).

It is. It's not the only possible treatment, and it might not be the best treatment for everybody, but his doctor concluded that it was the best treatment for his condition given his lifestyle. Somebody else might get different advice, e.g. avoid holidaying in France in July to avoid the triggers so that you don't have to risk the side effects of this powerful drug.

What might look dodgy would be shopping around until he found a doctor who came to that conclusion, because he wanted that treatment in preference to others for reasons not connected with therapeutic effectiveness. Nobody seems to have offered much evidence that this is what happened, but if it was then it certainly would be the first time somebody has done that.

Isn't it perhaps a cost thing?

It's might be, but it could also be a patient safety issue for MHRA/NICE. Avoiding triggers is safer as well as cheaper, inhalers are safer than injections etc.

his doctor concluded that it was the best treatment for his chances of winning the Tour De France given his need for performance enhancing side effects

ftfy

ftfy

What I was really implying was

he concluded that it was the best treatment for his chances of winning the Tour De France given his need for performance enhancing side effects

All he had to do then was to find the right doctor

The way he told it on Marr was that the doctor came to him after the Dauphiné, almost pressuring him into obtaining treatments for marginal gains.

"Is there anything we can do for you to make sure you have the best possible prep for the Tour Brad, anything at all?"

"Well, my breathing's been a bit difficult because-"

"We're on it!"

How can 'certain substances' taken in 'certain circumstances' be a grey area? Surely it's a certain area.

Sky's PR team are playing a blinder. Leaving Wiggins to hopelessly flail alone in outer space as they cruise away in the Death Star.

Because certain substances may not be permitted under certain circumstances but will be in others, which means it is down to someone to make a judgement call as to whether someone qualifies or not; can they justify prescribing something that would otherwise be prohibited.

If it's not a grey area then why is there all this fuss? Why is Brailsford keeping schtum? Why was Wiggins talking to Marr and not somebody who actually knows a bit about the subject?

I don't think that Wiggins has done anything wrong necessarily, but I've not been convinced by any line of argument on here that he definitely hasn't.

Man, Zorzoli is the gift that just keeps giving.