Doping

ah ok

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.

Well - he definitely hasn't (legally) because he was given TUE's by the authorities.

Ethically, my personal view is that they did step over the line. I don't Sky would be happy if it was another team and were they in the MPCC he wouldn't have ridden / taken it. And if it was Valverde or Contador I'd be thinking there goes the filthy doper again. IANADr but it seems likely that what he was given was more than strictly necessary and probably did have positive impact on performance.
That said, the treatment was signed off 3 times, (by different people?) so it clearly wasn't that obviously dodgy.

The sign off was by Zorzoli on his own which WADA were very concerned about because they require the 3 expert panel (referred to by BW) that UCI only actually put in place in 2015.

The whole UCI TUE process that was in place pre-2015 was Zorzoli was able to do whatever he wanted. And people like Rasmussen have said he was complicit in what went on at Rabobank. With Leinders. And TUEs.

Personally, I'd like to know a bit more context. How many TUEs have been signed off for this or similar drugs in the last 10 years? The number of TUEs issued is in relatively steep decline. Why is this? Are the panel getting stricter or is it due to the now legalisation of more standard asthma treatments hence much less need for TUEs for these type of common treatments?
When lance got a retrospective TUE for this drug, was the focus after this on the "retrospectiveness" or were people as wound up by the fact he was allowed to inject a steroid in the first place? If it's been common knowledge that you can get this on a TUE for this long, you'd expect quite a lot of people would have been trying to get one.

Got there before me^

The Zorzoli thing is interesting. Did BW mislead again in his interview then. He stated it got past the three member panel, but this is also not true?

He does seem to have a recurring problem with facts if so.

The Zorzoli thing is interesting. Did BW mislead again in his interview then. He stated it got past the three member panel, but this is also not true?

He does seem to have a recurring problem with facts if so.

Hmmm...

Ah. I didn't know that.

So..legal, but even more dodgy.

On a level playing field of dodginess thanks to UCI not having proper review process per WADA of TUEs

Pat McQuaid said 9/10 UCI didn't say no to a TUE which would be an interesting comparison to see how many are rejected now vs then.

Or what was rejected then!

Brailsford about to defend the indefensible* on Sky Sports News.

*or not.

I don't believe this is true. There was definitely a three person panel in place in 2013, and my understanding is that this was operating for the 2012 Olympics in London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/37472728

Thank you. That is very good from Brailsford and absolute true. As indeed with asthma you don't wait until it happens.

Funny everyone is hounding sky. But forgot Fulsang took the same thing days before Olympics this year.

everyone is hounding sky. But forgot Fulsang took the same thing

Fuggles rides for Astana, people expect him to dope.

Also. I don't see any wrong done. The rules were abided by. If people have a problem, it's with the TUE system and the approval, not Brad. He adhered to the rules and was granted the medication. IF it was an illegitimate use, then it should have not been granted.

I saw a stat earlier (can't find again) on number of recent TUEs issued and that sky was 13 of them or 4.6%. Make you wonder what all the others are.

TUEs should be independently verified.

TUEs should be independently verified.

They are.

TUEs should be independently verified.

They are. The athlete, or his representative, submits the TUE application to the TUEC which is a panel of 3 independent doctors. They inspect the application, which gives the medical history relevant to the application as well as the treatment recommended by the athlete's doctor, and they decide whether or not it should be accepted. They can ask for additional evidence if they're not sure, either a more detailed medical history or additional tests.

Ah right. Didn't realise the panel of 3 was independent. Figured they were UCI payed doctors.

Isn't there issue surrounding one doctor, zorzil, was reading about that the other day.

Dr Mario Zorzoli, former head of the UCI Medical Commission.

There were rumours he was collaborating with teams to avoid doping positives, so was suspended, but CIRC looked into this and no evidence was found that corroborated this, so he was reinstated. He left the UCI last year.

idn't realise the panel of 3 was independent. Figured they were UCI payed doctors.

Isn't there issue surrounding one doctor, zorzil,

Mario Zorzoli was paid by UCI to check rubber stamp TUEs on his own in the olden days, they have now moved to the WADA approved method of an independent panel of three.

AH right OK. Thanks both.

I do still wonder about Skys use of steroids out of competition. Hence non MPCC member.

I've always believed that everyone has done everything up to the black line. Nothing wrong with that, them the rules. Some people have wider morals.

I do think it might have been prudent to have released the medical records, for Brad. Plus for a big media corporation, they don't half handle this bad!

People should be more upset about his blatant Hour Record rule breaches.

.