Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
daddyELVIS wrote:I hope that
I hope that clears that up!Not really, no. Your entire argument is seemingly predicated on Sky behaviour being “total BS” and some over expectation of transparency e.g. as you once said
“If they were as clean and ethical as they say then they would have everything to gain from total transparency”
…it is not up to them to provide you with what you believe is sufficient.
I am not a Sky ‘fan’, nor am I blind to the possibility of skullduggery on their part, but I don’t find much point in endlessly debating straw men either.
daddyELVIS wrote:farrell
DaddyElvis, GKam, Glynr – Do you think all British riders, from 1997 onwards, should be stripped of every medal they have won?….
Besides, I can’t remember calling for any cyclist (past or present, track or road) to be stripped of any titles – why would I do that?
Read farrells reply to the questions about that. It seems to me he’s merely taking the current situation and extrapolating back to get to one of a number of possible (though not necessarily correct) conclusions. If that conclusion was correct then, given your previous posts, presumably it should result in the medals being stripped.
It is not to say that conclusion is correct, or even probable – indeed that’s probably part of the point – but seems inline with what you’d expect from a team so manipulative and with such evil intent as portrayed in the reasoning of a number of people on the intertubes.
Of course I might have that completely arse about face – in which case he’ll hopefully correct me.
Magic 8 ball says…… 28
Magic 8 ball says…… 28 !…or whatever you want really. Go have a good chat with some other wheel-builders too.
i’d have thought 24 was a bit un-necessarily few unless you’re built like Quintana, 32 might be on the higher side unless your a strapping lad/lass but none the worse for that. Plus, 28 still gives you a lot of good rim choice and spoke-wise, if you’re worried about cost then Alpina double-butted spokes seem cheap and rather well regarded.
Just a thought – IANA wheel builder mind, but was taking a lot of advice from people who do know recently when thinking about something similar-ish.
notfastenough
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)
Gkam84 wrote:You still don’t
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.
Gkam84 wrote:A committee
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)So Froomes TUE was illegal and wrong,..follows only if your reading of the UCI regs is correct.
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.
Gkam84 wrote:Ok, so have the
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.
Gkam84 wrote:BOOM….No
[quote=Gkam84]BOOM….No committeeBOOM…..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.
Gkam84 wrote:fukawitribe
Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about itMany 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.
Gkam84 wrote:Farrell, that is
Farrell, that is the question being asked by everyone and the UCI are refusing to answer. hence everyone is on their back about itMany are saying a committee needs to decide, and an individual cannot, that is what I was attempting to address here.
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 happenThere 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)
Gkam84 wrote:There is NO UCI
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).
The UCI takes its lead from WADA and has to go by their code, so the UCI regulations don’t matter.Citation.
Gkam84 wrote:fukawitribe
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.
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.Tah.
glynr36 wrote:Gkam84
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.
Gkam84 wrote:I don’t think
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.The UCI are saying WADA “investigated” and cleared them, which is bullsh*t.Which bit ?
Will be interesting to see how this one developsProbably not…….