Brailsford backs Wiggins on use of drugs under TUEs

Edgeley wrote:

It is jolly convenient that the right treatment for his genuine ailment not only alleviates the ailment but also makes him a better cyclist. 

..by removing muscle ? e.g. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-...

Quote:

Dr Brian Lipworth, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, said, however, that he believed there was “no scientific reason” why a drug like triamcinolone would be performance-enhancing.

“An anabolic steroid like testosterone puts on muscle mass but this is a catabolic steroid which breaks down muscle,” said  Lipworth, who sits on the WHO guidelines committee ARIA. “The benefits to David Millar were probably the fact that he was taking EPO and testosterone at the same time as he was using triamcinolone. So the anaobolic effect of the testosterone probably counteracted the triamcinolone."

(..uncomfortable as I am at posting a link to the Telegraph..)

fukawitribe wrote:

Edgeley wrote:

It is jolly convenient that the right treatment for his genuine ailment not only alleviates the ailment but also makes him a better cyclist. 

 

..by removing muscle ? e.g. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-...

Quote:

Dr Brian Lipworth, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, said, however, that he believed there was “no scientific reason” why a drug like triamcinolone would be performance-enhancing.

“An anabolic steroid like testosterone puts on muscle mass but this is a catabolic steroid which breaks down muscle,” said  Lipworth, who sits on the WHO guidelines committee ARIA. “The benefits to David Millar were probably the fact that he was taking EPO and testosterone at the same time as he was using triamcinolone. So the anaobolic effect of the testosterone probably counteracted the triamcinolone."

 

(..uncomfortable as I am at posting a link to the Telegraph..)

I see your newspaper speculation by a breathey specialist and raise you a couple of peer-reviewed articles by a couple of sports medicine academics (there are more articles even by these two) as quoted by Jackson on another thread:

K Collomp, "Short term glucocorticoid intake combined with intense training on performance and hormonal responses"

M Duclos, "Glucocorticoids: a doping agent"

Of course, St Brad and his vestal doctors were only trying to alleviate his pesky asthma, which was particularly pesky just ahead of two tours and one giro.

Edgeley wrote:

We have got to the ludicrous position where if you don't have a breathing difficulty, then you can't win as a pro-cyclist. 

No, we haven't.

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

STiG911 wrote:

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

TUE's shouldn't be allowed, if you are not fit enough, then don't race!

Just because he has this 'ailment' doesn't mean he should be able to take medication to make it a level playing field, how does anyone know that other riders also suffer from the same condition but decide to ride without a TUE, in this case Wiggins is getting an unfair advantage over them.

I don't have the same power or climbing ability as the pro's, so should I be allowed to use banned substances to make my performance closer to theirs to make up my natural shortfall, if I wanted to compete? NO obviuosly, so why should they?

Darren C wrote:

STiG911 wrote:

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

TUE's shouldn't be allowed, if you are not fit enough, then don't race!

Just because he has this 'ailment' doesn't mean he should be able to take medication to make it a level playing field, how does anyone know that other riders also suffer from the same condition but decide to ride without a TUE, in this case Wiggins is getting an unfair advantage over them.

I don't have the same power or climbing ability as the pro's, so should I be allowed to use banned substances to make my performance closer to theirs to make up my natural shortfall, if I wanted to compete? NO obviuosly, so why should they?

A TUE isn't about whether someone's fit or not, it's about treating a medical condition.

Asthma is an ailment, not an 'ailment' you don't just make it up because you feel like it. And stopping people with asthma or similar conditions from being an athlete because of it is a very discramnitory view indeed. Someone with the same condition might not suffer to the same degree, so uses a different treatement method - everyone's different after all , aren't they?

Not sure why your lack of climbing ability would suggest you'd need a banned substance to make up for you natural shortfall. Mark Cavendish isn't a good climber, but you don't see him whinging about not being able to take drugs to combat it - he just gets on with it until the next stage which might suit his sprinting ability.

STiG911 wrote:

Darren C wrote:

STiG911 wrote:

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

TUE's shouldn't be allowed, if you are not fit enough, then don't race!

Just because he has this 'ailment' doesn't mean he should be able to take medication to make it a level playing field, how does anyone know that other riders also suffer from the same condition but decide to ride without a TUE, in this case Wiggins is getting an unfair advantage over them.

I don't have the same power or climbing ability as the pro's, so should I be allowed to use banned substances to make my performance closer to theirs to make up my natural shortfall, if I wanted to compete? NO obviuosly, so why should they?

A TUE isn't about whether someone's fit or not, it's about treating a medical condition.

Asthma is an ailment, not an 'ailment' you don't just make it up because you feel like it. And stopping people with asthma or similar conditions from being an athlete because of it is a very discramnitory view indeed. Someone with the same condition might not suffer to the same degree, so uses a different treatement method - everyone's different after all , aren't they?

Not sure why your lack of climbing ability would suggest you'd need a banned substance to make up for you natural shortfall. Mark Cavendish isn't a good climber, but you don't see him whinging about not being able to take drugs to combat it - he just gets on with it until the next stage which might suit his sprinting ability.

Elite sport is discriminatory. That's kind of the point.

davel wrote:

Elite sport is discriminatory. That's kind of the point.

Erm, yep, sure - why not.

STiG911 wrote:

Not sure why your lack of climbing ability would suggest you'd need a banned substance to make up for you natural shortfall. Mark Cavendish isn't a good climber, but you don't see him whinging about not being able to take drugs to combat it - he just gets on with it until the next stage which might suit his sprinting ability.

I think you'll find Mr Cavendish is an extremely good climber (witness how he sets off again after the brief contretemps on the ToB with the roadside idiot). It's just that he's up against the likes of Chavez, Froome and Quintana in grand tours, and they are extraordinarily good, so you don't notice his ability so much.

The ToB came through the Chilterns where I do a lot of riding a couple of years ago, the day of the Alex Dowsett breakaway, and whilst Cav isn't on Strava, he was riding with Michał Kwiatkowski who was, and I can assure you that they were going faster up the hills then I average on the flat ...

STiG911 wrote:

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

That there were alternatives is one of the reasons why this 'conspiracy theory bullshit' is actually valid.

Other salient points appear to be:

- The particular drug might have had a performance-enhancing effect

- Wiggins initially denied having taken injections of this type and the 'truth' only came out after the TUE leak proved that wasn't the case.

Apropos of nothing, I'm sure Dr Michele Ferrari is smarter than you and me.

davel wrote:

STiG911 wrote:

Alan Williams wrote:

Extremely disappointed in trying to justify the decision to use a banned drug. Surely there are many more drugs that were/are not banned could have been used . Cheating to win.

There's a diference between cheating to win and using a drug to treat a condition for which you've applied for and been given, an exemption to use.

What's the point of creating the TUE mechanism only for people to moan about atheletes using it, and say it's cheating? I don't know if there are / were alternative treatments that could've been used, but people far smarter than us have obviously decided on the best course of action, AND, again, got clearance,  so enough with the cheating conspiracy-theory bullshit.

That there were alternatives is one of the reasons why this 'conspiracy theory bullshit' is actually valid. Other salient points appear to be: - The particular drug might have had a performance-enhancing effect - Wiggins initially denied having taken injections of this type and the 'truth' only came out after the TUE leak proved that wasn't the case. Apropos of nothing, I'm sure Dr Michele Ferrari is smarter than you and me.

There are always alternatives - could be that some cause adverse reactions, or some are too weak as to not make a difference. The combination of allergies and respiratory issues certainly suggests that a strong does was required to cancel out the symptoms and 'level the field' which is the point, not to gain an advantage as you say might have occurred.

The reason Wiggins denied taking injections of this type is because it was a specific response to questions on doping given the fallout from the LA affair, when everyone assumed that an athlete injecting meant that they were doping, regardless of the actual reason.

I note that no-ones saying anything about Chris Froomes use of a steroid to combat a chill - sorry 'a chill'

Arceye wrote:

A simple question. 

Could the athlete have done so well without the substance??  

If the answer is no, then they used it to enhance their performance beyond their natural ability. 

Translated ... cheating. 

 

It appears a lot of team sky / british cycling cyclist suffers from asthma and all have TUE's to use banned substances. So marginal gains translates to BS excuse to use banned substances.

Except traditional inhaler broncho-dilators aren't performance enhancing. There have been many studies, none that I have seen have shown statistically significant improvements in performance. Indeed, there seems to be a trend towards removing asthma medication from WADA's banned list. Salbutamol, formoterol and salmeterol have already been removed at standard doses. I confess to not knowing much about the drug Wiggins had injected, but since he seems to be the only one to have used it, you can't really extrapolate the use of that drug to the rest of SKY/Team GB. Laura Trott, for example, seems to use salbutamol and fluticasone propionate, which are both commonly prescribed medications to prevent an asthma attack.

Arceye wrote:

Not too long ago there was a phrase used  "most sophisticated doping scheme in sport"

1. Failing a test and getting a back dated prescription for BS saddle sores to cover up cheating in order to level the playing field in a sport of known cheats.

2. Getting a prescription first to show the athlete needs to cheat to compete with athletes less likely to be cheats. 

Is there really a difference ? 

Well not when you use the word "cheat" like that. There is a difference between Armstrong and using a common and easily taken drug with a specific aim to dilate the passageways of the lungs, with no proven effects on performance for non-asthmatics. Why should asthmatics be barred from all sport because some people don't understand what asthma inhalers do?

Arceye wrote:

So what I am hearing here is, It is an ADVANTAGE to have a RESPITORY DESEASE in a sport that requires a healthy strong respitory system.

No. That is not what you are hearing. You are hearing that those with a respiratory disease can compete on a level playing field with those who don't have this (very common) condition.

Next time he should try out: "The simple truth is that we outwork everyone. But when you perform at a higher level in a race, you get questions about doping."

Jimnm wrote:

Everyone's a winner with TUEs

Now I've got Paper Planes stuck in my head.