Home

Walsh has been very quiet since puffer-gate and the subsequent revelations about Froome's TUE at the TdR - but today, in an article for the Sunday Times, he broke his silence.

I've only seen quotes from the article on the CN website, but the following is quite telling:

"What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition? Farrell says he was unaware this ethical position existed within the team. Froome says he never heard of it. But Peters has said it did exist at one point and the team are in only their fifth year," Walsh writes. "As in the case of the appointment of (former Rabobank doctor) Leinders, Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk."

Finally, from Walsh's own mouth - Sky talk the talk, but do not walk the walk!

I'm sure Walsh hasn't delved too far below the surface in this article, but it's a start!

88 comments

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't think Sky did anything wrong, it is the UCI who are up sh*t creek without a paddle regarding the TUE.

The decision has to be made by a committee. It wasn't and WADA have told the UCI to get their house in order.

The UCI are saying WADA "investigated" and cleared them, which is bullsh*t.

Will be interesting to see how this one develops

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

I don't think Sky did anything wrong, it is the UCI who are up sh*t creek without a paddle regarding the TUE.

The decision has to be made by a committee. It wasn't and WADA have told the UCI to get their house in order.

It doesn't and they didn't (unless you know something about the latter). The rules apparently stipulate that an individual can also make that decision, the details of that appeared in, or link from, one of the
endless articles/posts/ramblings about this.

Gkam84 wrote:

The UCI are saying WADA "investigated" and cleared them, which is bullsh*t.

Which bit ?

Gkam84 wrote:

Will be interesting to see how this one develops

Probably not.......

Avatar
glynr36 [637 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

I don't think Sky did anything wrong, it is the UCI who are up sh*t creek without a paddle regarding the TUE.

Although they've done no wrong, they've said a few times about not used TUE's in competition and stuff, and how they were going to be 'clean' 'no one with history of doping involved' etc.
The latter a hugely niave statement to make I think.

Quote:

The decision has to be made by a committee. It wasn't and WADA have told the UCI to get their house in order.

This is the big thing people are missing, everyone is moaning at Sky for a TUE. Nothing wrong with that (ethically people might not agree with TUEs and with the POV if a rider needs medication X then they shouldn't be riding), its that the UCI didn't issue it accoding to the rules.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:

It doesn't and they didn't (unless you know something about the latter). The rules apparently stipulate that an individual can also make that decision, the details of that appeared in, or link from, one of the
endless articles/posts/ramblings about this.

The WADA code states

Quote:

2.1.1 The ADO must set up a network of physicians responsible for evaluating TUE applications. TUE Committees (TUECs) should include at least three physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine (see Article 6.1 of the International Standard for TUEs). The TUEC will be chaired by one of the member physicians.

fukawitribe wrote:

Which bit ?

WADA didn't clear them, it said that they were concerned about the process of getting the TUE and have asked the UCI to quickly remedy the shortcomings identified in this case.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
glynr36 wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:

The decision has to be made by a committee. It wasn't and WADA have told the UCI to get their house in order.

This is the big thing people are missing, everyone is moaning at Sky for a TUE. Nothing wrong with that (ethically people might not agree with TUEs and with the POV if a rider needs medication X then they shouldn't be riding), its that the UCI didn't issue it accoding to the rules.

It seems to me that half the people are talking about the decision being made against the rules, and the other half about the TUE.

Regarding the decision, i've had a dig around to try and clarify things - as much for my own interest as anything else. The UCI anti-doping regulations state that a committee over-sees TUE grants, but the actual decision for an individual application can be made by a single person. The most relevant sections (IMO) are as follows :-

Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC)

40.The UCI shall appoint a committee of at least 3 (three) physicians to consider requests for TUE’s: the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).

41. The members of the TUEC, or at least 3 (three) of them, shall be physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine.

42. A majority of the members of the TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest or political responsibility in the UCI or a National Federation. All members of the TUEC will sign a conflict of interest agreement.

43. The TUEC may seek whatever medical or scientific expertise it deems appropriate in reviewing the circumstances of any application for a TUE.

44. In applications involving Riders with disabilities, advice shall be sought from an expert possessing specific experience with the care and treatment of athletes with disabilities, if no member of the TUEC possesses such experience.

45. Upon the UCI’s receipt of a TUE application, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint one or more mem- bers of the TUEC (which may include the Chair) to consider such application and render a decision promptly.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

It doesn't and they didn't (unless you know something about the latter). The rules apparently stipulate that an individual can also make that decision, the details of that appeared in, or link from, one of the
endless articles/posts/ramblings about this.

The WADA code states

Quote:

2.1.1 The ADO must set up a network of physicians responsible for evaluating TUE applications. TUE Committees (TUECs) should include at least three physicians with experience in the care and treatment of athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine (see Article 6.1 of the International Standard for TUEs). The TUEC will be chaired by one of the member physicians.

See the post above, it's the UCI regulations not WADA that are relevant to the decision (although both seem to think they are singing from the same hymn sheeet). The UCI committee oversees things, the decision can be made by an individual - what is not detailed in what i've read, is the grant of the decision by the committee to the Medical Director.

fukawitribe wrote:

Which bit ?

Gkam84 wrote:

WADA didn't clear them, it said that they were concerned about the process of getting the TUE and have asked the UCI to quickly remedy the shortcomings identified in this case.

Tah.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

There is NO UCI committee that is the issue....they HAVE to have one before any TUE can be ruled on...it is that simple.

The UCI takes its lead from WADA and has to go by their code, so the UCI regulations don't matter.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

There is NO UCI committee that is the issue....they HAVE to have one before any TUE can be ruled on...it is that simple.

The committee has to exist at some point prior to the grant of a TUE - the committee then appoint one or more members of the committee to make the decision on receipt of an application for a TUE. That's what their regulations say. What i've not seen, an perhaps is the relevant issue, is how was the authority passed to the individual who made the decision not whether one person can make that decision (they can, the regulations are clear on that).

Gkam84 wrote:

The UCI takes its lead from WADA and has to go by their code, so the UCI regulations don't matter.

Citation.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This is how all TUE's have to be reported to WADA.....one person cannot make all the decisions like what the UCI have let happen

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-IS-TUE/...

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

There is NO UCI committee that is the issue....they HAVE to have one before any TUE can be ruled on...it is that simple.

The UCI takes its lead from WADA and has to go by their code, so the UCI regulations don't matter.

That doesn't sound correct.

So the UCI do not have any committee for TUEs?

Why would they not have a committee but have a protocol in place to expedite the process for TUEs so that one person can authorise them?

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

This is how all TUE's have to be reported to WADA.....one person cannot make all the decisions like what the UCI have let happen

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-IS-TUE/...

From that link "This is a model for ADOs"

The UCI are the body in charge of cycling, they are not an Anti-Doping Organisation. Surely that form would be used by the likes of UKADA/USADA etc?

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

This is how all TUE's have to be reported to WADA.....one person cannot make all the decisions like what the UCI have let happen

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-IS-TUE/...

There is no conflict between having a committee with three or more members and having an individual make the decision. The UCI regulation is explicit in that an individual can make that decision. If that is in conflict with WADA, which currently does not seem to have been flagged, then that is a another matter. The UCI may have been in alignment with their own regulations - it really goes down to how the authority was delegated and about which I have not commented beyond saying we don't know. (edited all the obvious typos)

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

Is it? Or is it more a case of a French tabloid trying to throw enough muck?

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:

Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

An individual cannot make the call without the committee though. So it is irrelevant who made the call on Froomes TUE if the UCI do not have a committee in place.

Here is an article that might help you http://inrng.com/2014/06/uci-vs-jdd-round-two-wada-guidelines-tue/

Otherwise, you could do what I did last night and take the UCI course on anti doping.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:

Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about it

Many are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.

An individual cannot make the call without the committee though. So it is irrelevant who made the call on Froomes TUE if the UCI do not have a committee in place.

That's what i'm saying - sheesh. The issue is was there a committee (e.g. a standing committee) who delegated the decision, not whether an individual can make that decision. I'm unsure that I can make it any clearer.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

So we have the French press saying the UCI has no committee in place.

But the UCI have a protocol in place to speed up the TUE process where necessary without requiring a full meeting of all committee members.

They also have somebody in place to act as co-ordinator for the committee.

It seems highly unlikely to me that the UCI would go to all that effort to then not actually have a committee.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The UCI "protocol" doesn't even come into it, the have to follow the WADA code.

They haven't done that, WADA has the final say, they have told UCI to sort it out, yet the UCI will not be open and transparent with anyone.

They have simply let Dr Zorzoli decide, bypassing the WADA code that demands a committee, so the UCI have failed to even stick by the code that governs ALL anti doping bodies. Meaning that Froome's TUE was actually illegal.

Until the UCI release the names and positions of their TUE committee (which doesn't exist) then there will always be questions.

Go to most other organisations who fall under the WADA code and you can find the names and positions of their TUE members

Avatar
Stumps [3414 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Getting back to the original post - Walsh has made his money from Sky by being big buddy with them but, now that he has his money, he is reverting back to type of a press reporter.

There is no story here other than what the French press are trying to do in wind up Froome and Sky before we, the British, take a thrid in a row of their beloved race.

Avatar
700c [976 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

Getting back to the original post - Walsh has made his money from Sky by being big buddy with them but, now that he has his money, he is reverting back to type of a press reporter.

Disagree with that view.
Walsh came to prominence pursuing Armstrong, one of the few who spoke out against him. He wrote a few books, published some articles, then spent a year at sky investigating whether or not they really were clean.

He found no evidence of doping, the book seems reasonably objective, I wouldn't say he gave them an easy tine. Yes he made some money writing about it afterwards, but don't think that means he lacks integrity.

He continues to be critical when he thinks sky are less than transparent, just as he was at times in his book.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
daddyELVIS [656 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Re: the original question, I get the feeling that Walsh is fuming about this, and he's probably hoping that this is as bad as it gets with Sky otherwise he'll have major egg on his face! I fear that such an unbearable conclusion to his 'relationship' with Sky may prevent him from delving too deep!

Re: the TUE for Froome, leaving the UCI's failings to one side (Cookson has major questions to answer after vowing to clean-up the sport), Sky's behaviour needs to come under major scrutiny. How ill was Froome? - he must (or at least should) have been very ill for a team doc to apply for urgent treatment with glucocorticosteroids - so ill in fact that he surely should have been ordered to rest (the MPCC would have insisted that a rider from one of their member teams rested in this instance, or not take the drugs if the rider wished to continue - remember Nibali and the wasp sting on his face anyone?).

So, were Sky using an illness (less severe than they suggest) as an excuse to gain a performance advantage without breaking any rules? - take a look back at Froome's performance, he certainly doesn't look too ill (he won a week-long stage race FFS). Check 2.34 - 3.10 and 4.10 - 4.29 in this clip (apologies for the 'cheesy' commentary):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV47MQWsR0E

Avatar
adrianoconnor [83 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

"What has happened to the team’s belief that TUEs should not be sought for riders in competition?"

I don't know anything about what goes on inside a team, but when you hear things like "the aggregation of marginal gains", you can't help but feel that this is where it could end up. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.

I really hope pro cycling is doing it's very best to be clean right now. Armstong's generation did far too much damage. There can be no excuse for lying and covering up, but sadly it's just part of our human nature.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Really ill....hardly.

I take medication that contains glucocorticosteroids every day for my asthma and also different medication through the summer that also contain them for allergies, along with Triamcinolone's.

It is not because I am really ill, it is as a preventative measure, because without them I could become really ill.

Avatar
fukawitribe [1957 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

BOOM....No committee

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/Internatio...

BOOM.....maybe. From the article

"A completely revised set of rules is in preparation and will enter into force on January 1, 2015 in conjunction with the revised 2015 Wada Code and International Standards, including the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE).
As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee."

which is slightly different from the following bit by the author (although the conclusion seems reasonable, i.e. it's not clear)

"a spokesperson for the UCI confirmed to Telegraph Sport that all requests would henceforth go through a panel. It is unclear from the statement whether one already exists or whether it will need to be created."

Seems to maybe suggest that the decision will not be passed to an individual or individuals as a sub-set of the committee - or at least if it does so then the decision will have to pass back through the committee (perhaps before granting TUE). Also this is talking about new rules for the UCI based on WADA directives for 2015. I'll give them this, it at least sounds better than we have at the moment, but I agree that if they were more open about all this it would stop a lot of the needless speculation.

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

BOOM....No committee

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/Internatio...

Did you read the article, or did you just hope it said what you wanted it to say?

"As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee."

"It is unclear from the statement whether one already exists or whether it will need to be created."

It's not confirmation that they do have one either but I still think that it would be much harder and more mither for the UCI to not have a committee.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Ok, so have the UCI given two different wordings just to put doubt out there. If you see the opening paragraph, it makes out there the UCI are saying that decisions from now on will go through A committee.....meaning there wasn't one in the first place to go through.

"The International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's world governing body, has told Telegraph Sport that it is to introduce an immediate change to its Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) process, ensuring that from now on all decisions pass through a committee."

Then they say

"As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE Committee."

Suggesting the have a committee, which if they had one, they would have been using it already for decisions.....they haven't and they don't have one

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Surely one wording is The Telegraph's phrasing, the other is the UCI's quote.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9092 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

True. But not using a committee not only goes against WADA code, it goes against what the UCI tell EVERY rider under its charge.

If you see the thread I started about the UCI course and get into the course, you will see they tell riders.

"Applications are dealt with by the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee."

Along with many other things, but still, everyone is blaming Sky, Sky have nothing to do with TUE's, ONLY a rider can apply for one. NO-ONE can apply on their behalf.

So everyone should be having a go at Froome, not Sky.

Pages