- This topic has 88 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
daddyELVIS.
-
CreatorTopic
-
June 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm #21744
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!
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
Anonymous
So, there was never a policy
So, there was never a policy of getting TUEs, but a reputable journalist (on the Cycling Podcast) has stated that Uran had one during the Dauphiné in 2011. You’d think that would be the sort of thing that would stick in the memory…notfastenough
fukawitribe
fukawitribe wrote:notfastenough wrote:fukawitribe wrote:I’ll do this once more then i’m off – i’m rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon…Someone is WRONG on the internet!
Oh yesh 😀
(Alas I was that man last night)
Thanks for reminding me of xkcd, I’ve just been laughing at a few. Doc Brown on halloween is class!
fukawitribe
notfastenough
notfastenough wrote:fukawitribe wrote:I’ll do this once more then i’m off – i’m rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon…Someone is WRONG on the internet!
Oh yesh 😀
(Alas I was that man last night)
fukawitribe wrote: I’ll do
fukawitribe wrote:I’ll do this once more then i’m off – i’m rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon…Someone is WRONG on the internet!
Fukawitribe, it’s simple:
1)
Fukawitribe, it’s simple:1) UCI have been found out not following WADA code
2) UCI still have Zorzoli at the anti-doping helm, FFS
3) On Cookson’s watch – the who promised integrity, honesty, transparency and to clean up the sport
4) Sky have been found out as bull-sh!tters
5) Sky do not operate to the same high ethical standards as many other teams, despite the BS PR they spout
6) Froome used a drug during the course of a stage race ( which he won) that is abused for PE reasons in many pro sports, including cycling
7) Most other teams (MPCC members) would not let their riders compete whilst on that drug
8) conclusion – nothing much has changed at the UCI and Sky are not the cleanest team!fukawitribe
Gkam84 wrote:You still don’t
Gkam84 wrote:You still don’t get it. THEY CANNOT just hand it off to one person….they are responsible to WADA and the code says they HAVE to decide it by committee…..a committee cannot hand it to one person either.I don’t care what you come back with that the UCI reg’s say they can and cannot do. UCI are members of the WADA code and therefore WADA rules and reg’s apply, not UCI sub codes they have put in place themselves. That is not how it works.
WADA code has to be followed to the letter.
For the rider, the UCI regs apply because a rider who is a member of the UCI Registered Testing Pool must have a UCI TUE regardless of any other exemptions from any other Anti-Doping Agency. From the WADA Code Section 4.4 Therapeutic Use
Athletes who have been identified as included in their International Federation’s Registered Testing Pool may only obtain therapeutic use exemptions in accordance with the rules of their International Federation.
(my emphasis). However, further in that section
WADA, on its own initiative, may review at any time the granting of a therapeutic use exemption to any International-Level Athlete or national-level Athlete who is included in his or her National Anti-Doping Organization’s Registered Testing Pool.
So the TUE for Froome (who is a member of the UCI RTP) can only come from the UCI and must be issued in line with the UCI rules. That those regulations may be scrutinised by WADA for compliance is another matter which does not mean the immediate nulling of the TUE. That can happen as WADA “through its TUE Committee (TUEC), has the right to monitor and review any TUE granted by a federation or anti-doping organization and, pursuant to such review, to reverse any decision.” (WADA ISTUE). That has not happened, and the only murmurs heard regarding WADA are that there is no problem with this grant on the medical side (last four words added for clarity).
Further, in the ISTUE WADA state
An application for a TUE will be reviewed by a Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).
This is inline with the UCI regulations, as the TUE request should be dealt with initially by the UCI TEUC. From there on, the actual decision about an individual case is made by one or more of members of the UCI TEUC. WADA says nothing about this, one way or another, so it may be that the UCI are complying with the letter of the Code but not the spirit (perhaps that is what was meant by WADA having concerns about the UCI protocol, who knows).
The entirety of the WADA Code related to non-WADA TUECs is below
6.1 TUECs should include at least three (3) physicians with experience in
the care and treatment of Athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine. In order to ensure a level of independence of decisions,
the majority of the members of any TUEC should be free of conflicts of interest
or political responsibility in the Anti-Doping Organization. All members of a TUEC will sign a conflict of interest agreement. In applications involving Athletes with disabilities, at least one TUEC member shall possess specific experience with the care and treatment of Athletes with disabilities.6.2 TUECs may seek whatever medical or scientific expertise they deem
appropriate in reviewing the circumstances of any application for a TUE.…and please note from the earlier WADA directive in the Code that the TUEC is only required for the review of the TUE and not the decision.
Gkam – i’m totally in agreement that the idea that a single person is apparently in charge of the TUEs in the UCI is ridiculous and that, at best, the UCI is probably not complying with the spirit of the Code. I hope that is what is being addressed in the new UCI regs and the 2015 Code update. However, reading through the letter of the law (UCI regulations, WADA Code and the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions) it seems
- The TUE for Froome could only come from the UCI
- The TUE had to be issued compliant with the UCIs regulations.
- The UCI regulations have no material conflict with the WADA Code or the ISTUE.
- Compliance with the ISTUE is (according to WADA) sufficient to assure the legality of the TUE.
Or whatever.
farrell
fukawitribe wrote:Or
fukawitribe wrote:Or whatever.The answer, my friend, is pissing in the wind, to paraphrase Mr Zimmerman. And don’t forget, Gkam has done “the course”. BOOOOM.
I personally can’t shift the image of Maureen Lipman giving it the old “Oooh, he’s got an ‘Ology….” routine but then that’s just the way my mind works.
Although, more seriously, if the UCI’s approach to anti-doping and all the procedures the UCI have in place are actually a load of bollocks, then what does that make the UCI’s anti-doping course?
Let’s await the next Sky
Let’s await the next Sky story, because there WILL be one!Gkam84
You still don’t get it. THEY
You still don’t get it. THEY CANNOT just hand it off to one person….they are responsible to WADA and the code says they HAVE to decide it by committee…..a committee cannot hand it to one person either.I don’t care what you come back with that the UCI reg’s say they can and cannot do. UCI are members of the WADA code and therefore WADA rules and reg’s apply, not UCI sub codes they have put in place themselves. That is not how it works.
WADA code has to be followed to the letter.
fukawitribe
Gkam84 wrote:A committee
Gkam84 wrote:A committee cannot just pick and choose who makes a decision though. I MUST be made by at least 3 members and if WADA had their way, it would require every decision to be made by a 6 person committee, 1 chairman and 5 members.No. Read the regs, that is precisely what they can do. The committee must have at least 3 members. Read sections 40-45 of the UCI anti-doping regs, particularly 45.
(amended post) Here
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTY2NjU&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1
(end amendment)Gkam84 wrote:So Froomes TUE was illegal and wrong,..follows only if your reading of the UCI regs is correct.
Gkam84 wrote:his results should be stripped as his TUE was against the WADA code and therefore he was using a banned substance without the proper authority…..WADA signed off on it – then questioned the procedure (probably rightly) and it’s being amended. None of the necessitates the illegality of the TUE.
BTW, has anyone seen Michelle
BTW, has anyone seen Michelle Cound’s twitter feed today? – her account has since been closed!She has publically called out the UCI, WADA, and Cookson, seemingly more for failing to protect rider confidentiality than anything else!
Froome & Sky must be fuming at her rant, and (if Sky / Froome have something more to hide) they will be crapping themselves now!
Await Sky PR claiming crazy Contador fan hacked her account – haha!
Contador must be having a little chuckle as Sky start to feel the heat!
Cycling – the only soap opera worth following – how long until Miss Cound is back though? Miss her already 🙂
A committee cannot just pick
A committee cannot just pick and choose who makes a decision though. I MUST be made by at least 3 members and if WADA had their way, it would require every decision to be made by a 6 person committee, 1 chairman and 5 members.So Froomes TUE was illegal and wrong, his results should be stripped as his TUE was against the WADA code and therefore he was using a banned substance without the proper authority…..
fukawitribe
Gkam84 wrote:Ok, so have the
Gkam84 wrote: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
I’ll do this once more then i’m off – i’m rapidly becoming an unfortunate XKCD cartoon… they seem to be talking about the decisions going through a committee. At the moment the UCI regs say there should be a committee, and when a request for a TUE comes through, that committee chooses one or more people from that committee – with or without expert help from outside – to make the actual decision. The mention of ‘requests’ going through the/a committee was made by the author in an apparent mis-quote of the UCI statement.
Agreed it’s wishy washy and unclear whether there was actually a committee although – like farrell – I personally find it slightly more believable that there was one, e.g. a standing committee that basically shovelled everything through to the MD.. but that’s guesswork. As is most of the stuff about this unfortunately. The UCI may be a bunch of senseless, inbred, bribe-taking morons but frankly nothing about this particular decision i’ve seen seems to indicate it’s some sort of deep, dark plot. YMMV.
True. But not using a
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.
Surely one wording is The
Surely one wording is The Telegraph’s phrasing, the other is the UCI’s quote. -
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.