The sky’s the limit, the saying goes – and according to Brian Cookson, Team Sky may have been at ‘the very limit’ when it came to the rules of the sport.
Commenting on Sir Bradley Wiggins’ therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for the banned corticosteroid triamcinolone, the UCI president told Reuters: “We shouldn’t be surprised when elite sports teams push to the very limit of the rules. Perhaps that’s what happened here, but the rules appear to have been abided by.”
Cookson did however also repeat some of his previous comments on the subject, suggesting there was a debate to be had about whether those rules should be altered.
“The issue of the substances issued to Wiggins appears to have been within the rules,” he said. “But I think there is an argument to be had about whether TUEs for that kind of substance are valid.”
Earlier this week, Chris Froome said that questions remained over Wiggins’ use of triamcinolone, but added: “Without knowing the exact details of his medical condition, it’s impossible to say if he was operating in a grey area.”
Mark Cavendish expressed similar sentiments, saying that, “unless you know Brad’s medical situation, the rest is just speculation.”
23 thoughts on “Cookson says Team Sky may have pushed rules to ‘the very limit’ with TUEs”
“I think there is an argument
“I think there is an argument to be had about whether TUEs for that kind of substance are valid.”
Totally agree, Brian. Thing is, I’m a nobody on a forum, some bloke in a pub. I’d kind of expect the head of the UCI to be shaping and advancing that argument.
No? Stick the kettle on then.
All T.U.E.’s, in all sports,
All T.U.E.’s, in all sports, should be published.
A famous once said – ‘Appears
A famous once said – ‘Appears? You’d have to do better than fucking appears, my friend’ And the same holds sway here. You’d damn well expect the head of the UCI to know better than ‘appears’ – surely he has all the documentation and such?
If it was shady, he’d be screaming blue murder but he isn’t, which means it was all above board, but for the sake of being politically correct or whatever bullshit, he says ‘appears’
Christ’s sake.
STiG911 wrote:
Have to love this logic. A Trumpian coup.
Carton wrote:
Well what’s wrong with the logic, then? Be specific instead of spouting sound-bite sarcasm.
STiG911 wrote:
I honestly thought it was self-evident. But I aim to please. So, first and doubtless foremost, not shouting something from the rooftops is in no way evidence that one believes that no wrongdoing took place.
Secondly, and a very distant second at that, there are a myriad of possible reactions from Cookson. The most unlikely being, in my view, that the sitting UCI president, while facing re-election, would acknowledge his own shortcomings while bringing back focus upon the scourge of his sport during it’s year end celebrations, at the same time undermining the independence of the Anti-Doping institutions and procedures he fought for, by unceremoniously blurting out hasty accusations from the rooftops of the institution he presides.
Carton wrote:
You’re right, but that doesn’t mean that being an evasive, self-interested politician is right. Cycling needs more.
STiG911 wrote:
You might want to brush up on 20 years of UCI history. It’s not an organisation with a proud history of challenging known dopers.
STiG911 wrote:
Double post
STiG911 wrote:
If only it was so simple.
Your famous whoever can say what they like but Cookson, as the UCI’s spokesman appearing cautiously above the parapet, doesn’t have that luxury. He has to say the least dangerous thing that doesn’t give the UCI’s solicitors a migraine nor prejudice the discussions that are no doubt already taking place. I’d not want to be in his shoes!
IMHO in the longer term this should work out positively, as we will surely see some better rules and procedures regarding TUEs, medication etc. Wiggo and Sky may have had a little gloss taken off their image but some would argue it’s a welcome counterbalance to the (perhaps unhealthy) reverential way Wiggins has been treated since his 2012 Tour-Olympic double; that’s not to reflect negatively on him but on the way we and the media treat our sporting heroes.
Also …. striped shirt with striped suit? How very Nigel Farage.
Cookson does actually have
Cookson does actually have the luxury of keeping his mouth shut or saying something of substance. It is that simple.
Instead, he’s opening his mouth to Reuters, and words are coming out, but he’s saying absolutely chuff all and appearing like a ditherer, or worse, a politician.
Cycling doesn’t have the luxury of mismanaging this TUE business.
davel wrote:
I don’t think he does. If he keeps quiet he would then be accused of dodging the issue, his silence endorsing the TUEs etc etc, the UCI being complicit / unwilling / incapable of action and so on.
He is unlikely to be in a position to say anything concrete because the decision is not his to make; it may not transpire that what he would like to happen will comes to fruition as there are so many parties involved. He’d then get slated for being rash, making decisions without consultation thinking he personally runs the whole sport, a dictator who decides it all, blah blah.
A bloody horrendous tightrope to walk.
I agree with the ‘damned if
I agree with the ‘damned if he does; damned if he doesn’t’ point, but Cookson knew how poisoned the chalice was when he took the role on. He doesn’t just need to be sorting the legacy out, but also to be seen to be doing it.
I’m not blaming him for not foreseeing the TUE fuss, but it’s the following wind of a shitstorm he was well aware of. Sort it out, and be seen to be sorting it out.
It could be that I’m being unduly harsh, but the cynic in me says that when cycling bosses appear as though they’re not sorting shit out, it isn’t that they’re working like Trojans behind closed doors and that it’ll all work out in the end. Occasionally it’s that they’re incapable of sorting it, or are complicit, and that the shit’s worse than we suspect – we just won’t find out about it for years.
davel wrote:
He doesn’t just need to be sorting the legacy out, but also to be seen to be doing it. I’m not blaming him for not foreseeing the TUE fuss, but it’s the following wind of a shitstorm he was well aware of. Sort it out, and be seen to be sorting it out.— davel
Yep, a straightforward task any of us could sort out in a lunch break, I’m sure. <sigh>
You know earlier when you
You know earlier when you said you might be being too harsh ?… probably at that point now.
It’s starting to feel like
It’s starting to feel like one is at a disadvantage if you are a completely healthy sports person with no medical conditions like asthma, or any number of other recognised ailments/conditions that can be treated within the TUE rules.
Because its not like the drugs used in TUE’s offer any kind of secondary performance benefit is it?
This needs tightening up big time. I think Cookson has made some rational comments and Team Sky have gone right up to the line with this to the point of tripping over it.
The teams can’t really be blamed for acting within the rules because to gain micro improvements in performance the boundaries have to be pushed. But it shows that the rules are not fit for purpose in my opinion.
Never fear, because Captain
Never fear, because Captain Dynamic thinks there’s an argument to be had!
That’s quite a wild false
That’s quite a wild false dichotomy there.
I’m assuming none of us have ever been, or stood for, head of the UCI?
I’m assuming none of us are expecting Cookson to sort anything out on his lunch hour (I’d put money on a ploughman’s sarnie taking him a couple of days) but, having served most of one term, having arranged, or agreed, to talk to Reuters, and opened his mouth, he could actually, you know, say something.
<bigger sigh, with arms fold>
davel wrote:
Nope. Simply expressing exasparation that too many people seem to want – and even expect – instant action, a quick fix or magic wand to be waved when it is not even remotely possible. Since these things don’t happen the fallback position is to shoot the messenger.
I don’t have to have held a position of that nature (in any sphere, not just sports administration) to have a grasp of how complex and difficult such a role could potentially be. Based on what we know about cycling and the UCI, and sh*t at UEFA, it’s perhaps an even worse position than I had imagined.
What do you think he should say at this point?
Well yes, your set-up was a
Well yes, your set-up was a false dichotomy. It isn’t a case where it’s excessively simplistic and you or I could do it – and it isn’t impossible, either. I’m sure there are a lot of conflicts and responsibilities and stakeholders to juggle, but anyone not up to it should step aside.
I think he should be taking the opportunity of talking to the likes of Reuters to set out what is happening – stuff has already happened to tighten up on TUEs so let’s hear that trumpet blown. Let’s hear what’s next – or even that something will be happening next; who he’s working with, that sort of thing. Keep the message constant and positive – the TUE situation isn’t great but it will be fixed, and here’s who we’re working with to that end. Let us know that he feels some accountability. He’s more than ‘the messenger’ – he has arguably the most important job in professional cycling.
Not ‘I think there’s an argument to be had’. I’m sure many of us in our relatively lowly jobs would be shouted down for coming out with weaselly shit like that.
I seem to recall hearing
I seem to recall hearing Brailsford say in a TV interview that they do everything within the rules to help them win. I was always slightly uncomfortable with that, but I suppose in elite sport it is almost inevitable.
That Sky appears to have pushed things as far as possible within the rules does suggest to me that they are actually careful to follow the rules, and in a way, increases my confidence that they are not using banned substances or cheating in other ways.
That’s not to say that I don’t think the TUE rules need fixing – I don’t think TUEs should be issued for performance enhancing drugs where there are non-performance-enhancing alternatives (my understanding of the Wiggins situation, although I’m not 100% clear), and when they are the only option, there needs to be some thought about whether they should exclude from competition for a period. Perhaps it depends on dose, strength of effect, etc.
The fault is with the people
The fault is with the people approving the TUEs.
Sky have been upfront with the authorities – “we want to use this drug to treat that condition, is that OK” presumably the system is in place for the TUE application to be rejected.
Now they could well have been trying it on- ‘can we get away with this? lets ask and see’ but if all people can say is you shouldn’t be able to get a TUE for that, and not you are using banned substances without a TUE, then they have followed the rules, and will probably expect other teams to be doing the same.