- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Are cracks appearing in the Walsh / Sky love affair?
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!
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- David9694 1 min 11 sec ago
'I racked up thousands in Ulez fines - I misread the rules and my dog ate the letters'...
- KDee 22 min 46 sec ago
It's the mass that's the issue. Two people on a petrol powered scooter can really mess up a cyclist. Also the fact so many of the petrol scooters...
- james-o 32 min 17 sec ago
"if we’ve got to fly there we’re not going" *applause from over here*
- KDee 33 min 16 sec ago
"Strumpjumper"...sounds like a euphemism for something else 🤔
- andystow 50 min 1 sec ago
The new RH tubes claim to solve that issue, but price and availability is a problem. I tried to get some to try out, but they went out of stock on...
- brooksby 1 hour 14 min ago
Cough - cough - Clevedon seafront! - cough cough
- eburtthebike 1 hour 32 min ago
Thanks for the tip. I didn't realise the Forest of Dean was inside the M25.
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 44 min ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 27 min ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 5 hours 28 min ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
Add new comment
88 comments
Thanks for reminding me of xkcd, I've just been laughing at a few. Doc Brown on halloween is class!
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.
"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.
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
BOOM....No committee
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10921050/Internatio...
BOOM.....maybe. From the article
which is slightly different from the following bit by the author (although the conclusion seems reasonable, i.e. it's not clear)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Is it? Or is it more a case of a French tabloid trying to throw enough muck?
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)
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?
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.
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).
Citation.
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?
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
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.
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 :-
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.
Which bit ?
Probably not.......
The WADA code states
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.
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.
Tah.
Pages