preferred-google-button
log in
register

Are cracks appearing in the Walsh / Sky love affair?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • June 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm #21744
    daddyELVIS

    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!

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 13 replies - 76 through 88 (of 88 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 23, 2014 at 10:57 am #800499
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:This is how all
    [quote=Gkam84]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/WADA_TUE_CommitteeDecision_EN.pdf%5B/quote%5D

    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)

    June 23, 2014 at 10:57 am #800497
    0
    Gkam84

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

    June 23, 2014 at 10:55 am #800495
    0
    farrell

    Gkam84 wrote:This is how all
    [quote=Gkam84]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/WADA_TUE_CommitteeDecision_EN.pdf%5B/quote%5D

    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?

    June 23, 2014 at 10:52 am #800493
    0
    farrell

    Gkam84 wrote:There is NO UCI

    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?

    June 23, 2014 at 10:49 am #800491
    0
    Gkam84

    This is how all TUE’s have to
    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/WADA_TUE_CommitteeDecision_EN.pdf

    June 23, 2014 at 10:44 am #800489
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:There is NO UCI

    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 10:40 am #800487
    0
    Gkam84

    There is NO UCI committee
    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 10:19 am #800485
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:fukawitribe

    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

    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 10:16 am #800483
    0
    fukawitribe

    glynr36 wrote:Gkam84

    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 10:04 am #800481
    0
    Gkam84

    fukawitribe wrote:It doesn’t

    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

    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 8:14 am #800479
    0
    glynr36

    Gkam84 wrote:I don’t think

    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.


    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.

    June 23, 2014 at 7:54 am #800477
    0
    fukawitribe

    Gkam84 wrote:I don’t think

    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…….

    June 23, 2014 at 2:38 am #800475
    0
    Gkam84

    I don’t think Sky did
    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

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 13 replies - 76 through 88 (of 88 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.