WADA and the UCI have "failed" over TUE use says David Millar

fck off Millar.  He wasn't even a good enough cheat to avoid getting caught.

Some really bizarre IMHO stuff being put forward on this topic. 

Cycle racing is a game and like any other game defined by its rules.  There is a rule which allows theraputic treatment and specifies how it is obtained.  The TUE process is not as straightforward as 'ask and you will get one' but it even if it were it seems to me that in order to 'cheat' you would need to apply to be treated either for a condition you don't have or have a treatment that wasn't appropriate for the condition.   So Millar was, as he sets out in his (very readable) book, cheating.  Wiggins wasn't, as neither of those conditions are met, so far as anyone has shown conclusively to date.

Then we move into the area of 'my mate down the pub is a doctor and he said that the treatment gives a benefit'.   To which I would say 'so what?' Unless one of the two conditions are met, and the doctors employed by the UCI get paid to decide those things, then it ain't cheating.

I don't see how you can run the game without some process for treating illness or other medical conditions.  And there is no easy answer to what conditions should be treatable (see diabetes debate above) or what treatments should be allowable, other than a de minimis principle which would proscribe, say, bionic legs as a treatment for in-grown toe nails. 

I'm not saying its all okay but the evidence for wholesale and widespread cheating (in this way at least) doesn't seem to be there.  Not that this has stopped people offering their opinions but as I said on another version of this thread, you should really look at their motives before accepting what they say.

CIRC raised the issues of TUEs in 2014, stating that they were a weak point and should be addressed.  What happened Brian?  

I'm by no means a fan of Millar, but to be fair he stated that the CIRC report interviewed riders about what had happened in the past, but not about what was happening in the peleton currently.  

David Millar seems to have spent a large part of his life and career cheating and then lying about it. So why should I believe a word he says?

Performance enabling is the same as performance enhancing. It's apologist semantics.

You can take drugs and get a benefit because physically your body is capable of that performance - while on that drug. Whether you call it enhancement or enablement depends on the point you're trying to make, but it's the same effect. 

The issue with abuse of TUE's is where to draw the line between perfromance enhancing and perfromance enabling. If that line is clearly defined drug A performance enhancing , drug B performance enabling etc then the gray areas should decrease. If you need to use drug A you should be side-lined for a set period until your system passes the drug.

The whole Wiggins case is dragging on now. He had hayfever, not life theatening as far as I know. Unlike diabetes, as mentioned above, which needs constant drug treatment/control to prevent your body entering life threatening situations. Yes, Wiggins has asthma which can also cause life threatening symptons but can be controled by inhalers and from what's been written and reported Wiggins managed his asthma correctly using inhalers. The whole sports induced asthma subject needs strict control testing to set benchmarks for what's allowable, but thats for another day.

The vast majority of doctors I've heard talking on this subject, are in no doubt that the use Kenacort/Kenalog/triamcinolone is accessive in this case and several who either practice or volunteer in sports say that its performance enhancing. They have also stated that its use causes damage to the body and repeated use is ill advised. Then the ex dopers are saying that its a once a year drug due the effect it has on your body, which you would only take before a target event. Yes, ex-dopers are often pushing their own agenda and selling books etc, but they know from experience what these drug do and their stories seem to be backed up by the medical profession in terms of benefits/enhancements that these drugs offer

There's a premise, true or not,  behind all of this that elite athletes are physically superior or gifted. Talented. The hard work comes on top of that. I quite like that idea though I doubt it's often true. 

What I'd do is split cycling into 'pro cycling' and 'pro natural cycling'. As with bodybuilding. No sincere testing in the former. Then let the public decide which they prefer to watch. See where the money goes. Where the athletes go. What I think we'll see is that the general public will watch the faster 'pro cycling' and the money will go there too. 

And that would be the end of it. Back to where it all started. Ethics is a funny thing. Most people only care about it when confronted with it. 

Personally my issue with cycling at the moment is that some guys are pinning and some aren't. Not concerned in the least for the 'rules'. Some guys are taking drugs, some aren't. I'd rather open it all up to drug use than have the current situation where only some guys are getting their edge in.

Actually, considering the nature of our species, it would be odd not to have a competition where technological and medical enhancement were used. Supercharged athletes with redundant organs removed, heart rates engineered etc. Could be a playing field for the medical profession to trial their most innovative ideas. Big risks, big rewards, big drama. All for it. Just keep it separate from the natty guys.

I'd argue that it's unethical not to do so. Not to push medicine further and faster on willing human subjects, for the greater good.

Millar has a point but it's not as black & White as he makes out, as clearly indicated by JRM NZ. Does probably need stricter enforcement/guidelines setting for situations like Wiggins where it does look suspicious in terms of when TUE was granted & type of drug used.

1. Yes if it gives you a performance advantage
2. Not being allowed to compete does not denote a second class person. Get your self esteem another way
3. Does it not? If not, no worries. If yes why would you not feel guilty having an advantage?
4. We discriminate all the time. Women are not allowed to compete against men. There are different categories of disabilty in the Paralympics. We discriminate against athletes that take banned substances. Insulin is a banned substance.

Totally agree with the insulin rule, also thyroxine is seen as a PED  along with other endocrine problems! This argument that if u need meds u shouldnt race is utter crap! Do we ban all athletes with chronic health  problems and  physical challenges if they need medication? Surely improving the checks that the TUE is needed with independent medical assessment is the way forward

This guy's like a lingering fart that won't disperse. Wish he'd piss off into the sunset in his Maserati 

Following David Millar's logic here, that TUE's should only be used out of competition, and no trace should be present if the athelete is competing, this effectively would permanently eliminate the entire squad of Team Novo Nordisk.

Insulin is a banned substance under the classification S4. Hormone and Metabolic Modulators.  I've checked the USADA website and it clearly states: An athlete diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes is required to submit a TUE for use of insulin.

I'm an insulin dependant diabetic.  Under David Millar's suggestion any person who has developed this condition would effectively be banned from competitive sport.  We suffer from an auto immune illness, where our immune systems have actually attacked the cells that produce insulin.  Without insulin in the immediate short term we get pretty sick.  Death would occur within a few days.  Certainly any form of competition would be impossible without it.

Each member of Team Novo Nordisk is an insulin dependant diabetic.  It is a team put together for the specific purpose of demonstrating that the illness shouldn't be a full stop to leading an active life.

I'm sure there are other examples of where TUE's are as necessary as Insulin is for us.  Coming out with a blanket rule like the one DM has suggested is overly simplistic.