Cookson says Team Sky may have pushed rules to ‘the very limit’ with TUEs

The fault is with the people approving the TUEs.

Sky have been upfront with the authorities - "we want to use this drug to treat that condition, is that OK" presumably the system is in place for the TUE application to be rejected.

Now they could well have been trying it on- 'can we get away with this? lets ask and see' but if all people can say is you shouldn't be able to get a TUE for that, and not you are using banned substances without a TUE, then they have followed the rules, and will probably expect other teams to be doing the same.

I seem to recall hearing Brailsford say in a TV interview that they do everything within the rules to help them win. I was always slightly uncomfortable with that, but I suppose in elite sport it is almost inevitable.

That Sky appears to have pushed things as far as possible within the rules does suggest to me that they are actually careful to follow the rules, and in a way, increases my confidence that they are not using banned substances or cheating in other ways.

That's not to say that I don't think the TUE rules need fixing -  I don't think TUEs should be issued for performance enhancing drugs where there are non-performance-enhancing alternatives (my understanding of the Wiggins situation, although I'm not 100% clear), and when they are the only option, there needs to be some thought about whether they should exclude from competition for a period. Perhaps it depends on dose, strength of effect, etc.

Well yes, your set-up was a false dichotomy. It isn't a case where it's excessively simplistic and you or I could do it - and it isn't impossible, either. I'm sure there are a lot of conflicts and responsibilities and stakeholders to juggle, but anyone not up to it should step aside.

I think he should be taking the opportunity of talking to the likes of Reuters to set out what is happening - stuff has already happened to tighten up on TUEs so let's hear that trumpet blown. Let's hear what's next - or even that something will be happening next; who he's working with, that sort of thing. Keep the message constant and positive - the TUE situation isn't great but it will be fixed, and here's who we're working with to that end. Let us know that he feels some accountability. He's more than 'the messenger' - he has arguably the most important job in professional cycling.

Not 'I think there's an argument to be had'. I'm sure many of us in our relatively lowly jobs would be shouted down for coming out with weaselly shit like that.

That's quite a wild false dichotomy there.

I'm assuming none of us have ever been, or stood for, head of the UCI?

I'm assuming none of us are expecting Cookson to sort anything out on his lunch hour (I'd put money on a ploughman's sarnie taking him a couple of days) but, having served most of one term, having arranged, or agreed, to talk to Reuters, and opened his mouth, he could actually, you know, say something.

<bigger sigh, with arms fold>

Never fear, because Captain Dynamic thinks there's an argument to be had!

It's starting to feel like one is at a disadvantage if you are a completely healthy sports person with no medical conditions like asthma, or any number of other recognised ailments/conditions that can be treated within the TUE rules.

Because its not like the drugs used in TUE's offer any kind of secondary performance benefit is it?

This needs tightening up big time. I think Cookson has made some rational comments and Team Sky have gone right up to the line with this to the point of tripping over it.

The teams can't really be blamed for acting within the rules because to gain micro improvements in performance the boundaries have to be pushed. But it shows that the rules are not fit for purpose in my opinion.

You know earlier when you said you might be being too harsh ?... probably at that point now.

I agree with the 'damned if he does; damned if he doesn't' point, but Cookson knew how poisoned the chalice was when he took the role on. He doesn't just need to be sorting the legacy out, but also to be seen to be doing it.

I'm not blaming him for not foreseeing the TUE fuss, but it's the following wind of a shitstorm he was well aware of. Sort it out, and be seen to be sorting it out.

It could be that I'm being unduly harsh, but the cynic in me says that when cycling bosses appear as though they're not sorting shit out, it isn't that they're working like Trojans behind closed doors and that it'll all work out in the end. Occasionally it's that they're incapable of sorting it, or are complicit, and that the shit's worse than we suspect - we just won't find out about it for years.

Cookson does actually have the luxury of keeping his mouth shut or saying something of substance. It is that simple.

Instead, he's opening his mouth to Reuters, and words are coming out, but he's saying absolutely chuff all and appearing like a ditherer, or worse, a politician.

Cycling doesn't have the luxury of mismanaging this TUE business.

Also .... striped shirt with striped suit?  How very Nigel Farage.

A famous once said - 'Appears? You'd have to do better than fucking appears, my friend' And the same holds sway here. You'd damn well expect the head of the UCI to know better than 'appears' - surely he has all the documentation and such?

If it was shady, he'd be screaming blue murder but he isn't, which means it was all above board, but for the sake of being politically correct or whatever bullshit, he says 'appears'

Christ's sake.

All T.U.E.'s, in all sports, should be published.

"I think there is an argument to be had about whether TUEs for that kind of substance are valid."

Totally agree, Brian. Thing is, I'm a nobody on a forum, some bloke in a pub. I'd kind of expect the head of the UCI to be shaping and advancing that argument.

No? Stick the kettle on then.