Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Therapeutics use exemptions (TUES)

2

Comments

  • Options
    LuckyReds said:

    Russian bullshit: a bit of a non story, made in to something else and conveniently spread after a poor olympics by Russia and a year of embarassing controversies.

    Oh there's absolutely no question about the motives of doing this but does that mean it should be ignored?
  • Options
    LuckyReds said:

    Russian bullshit: a bit of a non story, made in to something else and conveniently spread after a poor olympics by Russia and a year of embarassing controversies.

    I agree that this is a blatant attempt to divert attention from Russian doping but I don't think it's a non-story. Wiggins seems to have lied in his autobiography and is now unconvincingly attempting to explain why he did so. I don't think he did anything illegal but I think it's fairly obvious that the 'treatment' he received was very conveniently timed.
  • Options
    colthe3rd said:

    LuckyReds said:

    Russian bullshit: a bit of a non story, made in to something else and conveniently spread after a poor olympics by Russia and a year of embarassing controversies.

    Oh there's absolutely no question about the motives of doing this but does that mean it should be ignored?
    Not at all, I agree with you that it needs to be looked at.

    Alas, I'm more concerned at Russia's recent habit of using cyber crime to undermine other countries; be that the Hilary emails in the US, attempts at disrupting our election last year, and now this. They've been quite active, and arguably more overt, recently.

    I still suspect this maybe much ado about nothing though, or at least hope that is the case. If it's really rife throughout the sport, then really is it any different from mechanical advantages on the bike - or racing tires?
  • Options

    colthe3rd said:

    David Walsh's Sunday Times article:
    https://reddit.com/r/peloton/comments/54cmx2/david_walsh_on_bradley_wiggins_in_sunday_times/

    Certainly has me questioning it a bit more and I think he's right, Brailsford has some questions to answer.

    Agreed... I'd like to see an interview between Walsh and Wiggins...

    If the latter refuses then it would certainly have me doubting him a hell of a lot more
    In order to stop the gossip, this needs to happen
  • Options

    having read the entire thread, i am still at a loss as to what is happening on Tuesday?

    We're throwing asthma pumps on the pitch at the Oldham game. Keep up Dave.
  • Options
    With the best will in the world, David Walsh is an arse. He'll have you believe that he was responsible for Armstrong's downfall when - in reality - he was just one of dozens - hundreds - of people who helped bring it about. In fact, it was the USADA and threat of the FBI that finally exposed him. Walsh has made a career out of riding on the coattails of that investigation and is little more than a charlatan. He'll be wheeled out again and again to the public as a knowledgeable, ruthless critic of doping in cycling, when two of his best mates are Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche - both juiced up to the eyeballs through their entire careers (like every other cyclist in the eighties). Try and find some criticism of them from Walsh, then ask yourself how objective he really is

    The problem here is that Wiggins will be tried in the court of public opinion, by people who don't know cycling inside and out and will just assume his guilt because The Meeja have an agenda to portray it as fact. Sad, sad times.
  • Options
    Tbf though Leroy, you're hardly objective yourself here.
  • Options
    edited September 2016
    Wiggins use of the drug absolutely stinks, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter what you think of TUE's, its the timing of when he took the drug that makes it so suspicious, 3 times before each grand tour he was targeting in each year (2011,2012,2013), then never again before of after. His interview on Marr did nothing for me either, especially that cliché about a level playing field, I thought we'd left that back in the 90's/00's.

    Furthermore the fact that it is well documented that the mentioned drug helps you lose weight, something that was always holding Wiggins back in grand tours. Just look at the testimonies from previous dopers about how they lost 1.5-2 Kg in a week by taking what he took, this would make a huge difference to Wiggins.

    I'll reserve my full judgement as I hope more details on both sides come out but at the moment I am very disappointed in the situation as a whole.

    For the record I don't think most TUE's are a bad thing at all, in fact pretty much all of the ones that have been released are complete non-stories, maybe it would be a good thing to make future TUE's public to encourage clean sport and transparency within cycling.
  • Options

    For the record I don't think most TUE's are a bad thing at all, in fact pretty much all of the ones that have been released are complete non-stories, maybe it would be a good thing to make future TUE's public to encourage clean sport and transparency within cycling.

    They absolutely should be made public, unless there's a bloody good reason not to.

  • Options
    colthe3rd said:

    Tbf though Leroy, you're hardly objective yourself here.

    Why - cos I take the same drug?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    LuckyReds said:

    Russian bullshit: a bit of a non story, made in to something else and conveniently spread after a poor olympics by Russia and a year of embarassing controversies.

    Bullshit is when you lie.

    This is all true, that's why Wiggins is doing the damage limitation TV chat.

    I will state again, sky used a loophole and Wiggins went along with it.

    Think tax avoidance and tax evasion;
    Wiggins and sky went down the Tax avoidance route which is legal but a piss take all the same.
  • Options
    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?
  • Options

    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?

    To me that would be a niave way of viewing it, I don't doubt for one minute it was legal,

    It was done with imorale intention
  • Options
    edited September 2016

    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?

    To me that would be a niave way of viewing it, I don't doubt for one minute it was legal,

    It was done with imorale intention
    But whats the difference between the two?

    I dont believe there were imorale intentions from Wiggins, I do believe he's right in saying that had he mentioned needles prior to now then everyone would think the worst seeing we're not long past the Armstrong scandal.

    Meaning Wiggins was damned if he came out or damned if he stayed quiet
  • Options

    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?

    Does the injection contain banned substances?
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?

    Does the injection contain banned substances?
    I think the point is that neither did.
  • Options
    stonemuse said:

    MrOneLung said:

    To spin it on its head...

    A Footballer is suffering from a back injury... Takes an injection to ensure they can play... Surely thats the exact same as what Wiggins has done?

    Does the injection contain banned substances?
    I think the point is that neither did.
    It is a banned substance hence the need for the TUE. I think using the footballer analogy, if they were to take an injection for something 3 times just before they played in a major final having never needed them before, without a doubt there would be questions asked and rightly so. This isn't to accuse someone, clearly there is a medical need for these the problem comes when someone takes it who doesn't have a medical need. Let's face it, dodgy doctors are well known in sport so it isn't ridiculous to imagine a doctor authorising an injection knowing that they can use the medical need like e to get it approved.

    Again not accusing anyone but the questions being asked are valid. It's a pretty big grey area and everyone involved knows it.
  • Options
    TUEs are rife in football. So many have them for cortisone
  • Options
    Your honesty can never be bought in to doubt if you don't tell lies

    Wiggins lied so how do you know he isn't lying now,

    I don't buy the damned if you do damned if you don't

    Sky and Wiggins didn't say anything because what they were doing was questionable, I fond it amazing that so many supreme athletes suffer from heart and respiratory problems that would knock a mere mortal out for months


  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Maybe the training before each major tour did exacerbate his asthma.

    Still looks dodgy though.

    It gives massive weight loss I read.

  • Options

    Maybe the training before each major tour did exacerbate his asthma.

    Still looks dodgy though.

    It gives massive weight loss I read.

    i dont suppose you also read where i you can buy it did you?
  • Options
    Off the Internet or in the US would be a fair bet.
  • Options
    edited September 2016
    Froome knows the score:



    Second paragraph tells you all you need to know. Difference between legal and 'fair'.
  • Options
    I don't sense that Froome and Wiggins are in Tandem on this issue.
  • Options

    I don't sense that Froome and Wiggins are in Tandem on this issue.

    Whatever gives you that idea?


    :wink:
  • Options

    I don't sense that Froome and Wiggins are in Tandem on this issue.

    I dont think they see eye to eye on any issue ;)
  • Options
    Surely if you had bad asthma / allergies you would need to take this drug regularly rather than just three times ?
  • Options
    MrOneLung said:

    Surely if you had bad asthma / allergies you would need to take this drug regularly rather than just three times ?

    Yeah but a doctor said so so there.
  • Options
    edited December 2016
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/19/mystery-package-fluimucil-dave-brailsford-cycling?CMP=share_btn_tw

    The package at the centre of a UK Anti-Doping investigation contained the decongestant Fluimucil, Team Sky principal Sir Dave Brailsford said on Monday.

    Speaking at a Culture, Media and Sport select committee hearing, Brailsford confirmed the nature of a delivery made by British Cycling coach Simon Cope to Team Sky at the 2011 Dauphiné Libéré, a key race in the build-up to the Tour de France, after fellow cycling chiefs had pleaded ignorance.

    Committee chair Damian Collins MP had earlier asked British Cycling president Bob Howden, chair of the British Cycling ethics commission Dr George Gilbert and former Team Sky coach Shane Sutton about the package, with none of the three able to offer any new information.

    When Brailsford appeared later, he said: “[Team Sky doctor Richard] Freeman told me it was Fluimucil for a nebuliser. That was what was in the package. It was what Dr Freeman told me.” Fluimucil is a decongestant used for clearing mucus.

    A drug that is not licensed in the UK and shouldn't be taken if you have asthma...

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!