Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:39 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
biker jk wrote:Lance Armstrong calling out Cancellara as a doper. Classicomo Luigi was the nickname on a Puerto bloodbag rumoured to belong to Cancellara although other cyclists have been suggested as owning the blood bag.

@TrekSegafredo Luigi!!

https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/stat ... 4400550912
Pretty sure Luigi was Dekker:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/thomas-d ... ~a3381753/
Others are pretty sure it was Cancellara.

https://translate.google.com.au/transla ... t=&act=url

Dekker says it wasn't him.

https://translate.google.com.au/transla ... t=&act=url

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14775
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby MichaelB » Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:25 am

More Masters riders nabbed

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/08/ ... am_418887

As of July, USA Cycling said that 113 tests have been conducted in the amateur ranks, compared to 45 tests for all of 2015.

Baatz was caught by an in-competition test at Tour of Corsicana in Corsicana, Texas, March 12. His sample showed the presence of anabolic steroids, and the 48-year-old winner of the men’s 40+ overall in Corsicana has accepted a two-year ban. Ciolli also tested positive for anabolic steroids, as well as the stimulant proplyhexedrine at Tulsa Tough after winning the women’s masters 40+ race on June 11. Ciolli argued that the failed test was the result of a prescription medication and an over-the-counter product, taken under the guidance of a physician. USADA accepted the explanation, but without a TUE, Ciolli accepted the two-year ban.


This is ridiculous. Is your life that empty that you need to resort to that level 'enhancement' :?

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:16 pm

Rio 2016: Australian gold medallist Michael Gallagher out of Paralympics after testing positive to EPO

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-02/r ... an/7810264

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:35 pm

A total of 6 TUEs for Wiggins with 3 for triamcinolone acetonide, one just before the 2011 TdF, one just before the 2012 TDF, and one just before the 2013 Giro. Seems his skin inflammation due to a pollen allergy only occurred before Grand Tours...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de ... wada-hack/

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:42 am

biker jk wrote:A total of 6 TUEs for Wiggins with 3 for triamcinolone acetonide, one just before the 2011 TdF, one just before the 2012 TDF, and one just before the 2013 Giro. Seems his skin inflammation due to a pollen allergy only occurred before Grand Tours...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de ... wada-hack/
The substance is only prohibited in-competition so TUEs at other times are not required. Given there are only 6 of them over a long race career, it hardly implies anything particularly sinister.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:18 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
biker jk wrote:A total of 6 TUEs for Wiggins with 3 for triamcinolone acetonide, one just before the 2011 TdF, one just before the 2012 TDF, and one just before the 2013 Giro. Seems his skin inflammation due to a pollen allergy only occurred before Grand Tours...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de ... wada-hack/
The substance is only prohibited in-competition so TUEs at other times are not required. Given there are only 6 of them over a long race career, it hardly implies anything particularly sinister.
Wiggins didn't apply for a TUE for triamcinolone acetonide at Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie and Criterium du Dauphine, all of which he won in 2012, just needed one for the TdF. I'm no expert on the European pollen season but seems Wiggins didn't need any relief before the TdF.

From the CIRC Report

One doctor stated that it was impossible to lose the weight that some riders achieve
without assistance, and that the TUE is taken advantage of to enable this practice.122 He
stated that riders use corticoids to “lean out” i.e. to lose weight quickly, and keep it off,
without losing power. By way of example he explained that to lose 4kg in 4 weeks by
using corticoids would provide a 7% power/weight improvement. He added that when
used in large quantities and in conjunction with other substances, they supported
performance gains. Another doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI
WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to
get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same
weight-loss technique). It was reported that this had been a planned approach by that
group’s management.


http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Clea ... eutral.pdf

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:51 am

Like I said, all these leaks show are details of an athlete complying with the anti-doping regulations, no more, no less. Which is what you'd expect them to show since non-compliance would either not be on record or be an AAF.

The whole saga has been a bit of a non event so far.

I think the issue is the nature of the TUE rules, not of the athletes who work within those rules. Bumping up to the limit of any rule is normal in all sport.

We are in a world where facts and evidence matter little in any case, critical thinking skills are in short supply, and the leak of this data is simply being viewed as support for whatever side it is that people believe, when in reality it supports neither.

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 11508
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: If you need to know, ask me
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby RonK » Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:39 am

As the CIRC reported, some riders/teams may be using corticoids to accelerate weight loss.

No question that issuance of TUE's follows the formal process and in that sense demonstrate compliance.

And of course, the idea of a compliant or complicit doctor is totally unheard of in the cycling world.

Isn't it?
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:34 pm

Not looking good for Wiggins and Team Sky.

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/team-sky ... -concerns/

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby DavidS » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:07 pm

Indeed, I remain suss.

I read somewhere that some of the drugs taken, with permission, allow loss of weight without loss of strength or endurance. This is a big advantage, dragging less weight up a long mountain stage is a great big advantage.

It has always mystified me why so many elite athletes seem to be asthmatics. It would appear to make no sense. Then again, the benefits of anti-asthma drugs makes one think.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14775
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby MichaelB » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:13 am

The TUE system shows that anything can be done for 'legitimite' reasons :roll:

Majority probably are, but many seem to be pushing the limits of credibility, especially with the timing of such TUE's. e.g. Wiggin's allergy treatments - seem to be jsut before GT's, but since then, none ? Is he cured all of a sudden, especially given it was a lifelong issue ......

If it walks like a duck ......

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby fat and old » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:19 am

Much mirth to be gained looking at The Clinic now. :lol: You couldn't ask for a bigger fall guy than Wiggans post Armstrong :lol: And on an English site....the cream... it doesn't get any better.

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:45 pm

MichaelB wrote:The TUE system shows that anything can be done for 'legitimite' reasons :roll:

Majority probably are, but many seem to be pushing the limits of credibility, especially with the timing of such TUE's. e.g. Wiggin's allergy treatments - seem to be jsut before GT's, but since then, none ? Is he cured all of a sudden, especially given it was a lifelong issue ......

If it walks like a duck ......
The only duck I see walking is one that's using TUEs in a manner a duck is permitted to use them.

The TUEs are not consistent in their application just before all GTs he's raced, and are for substances where TUEs are not required out of competition, and so of course TUEs of this type will only ever coincides with a race, and nobody knows what his frequency and level of usage is outside of those half dozen examples.

This information doesn't demonstrate doping, nor does it demonstrate legitimacy. Logically, the latter can never be shown.

About all we can say with the leaked stuff for everyone involved is that it looks to me like what's been released so far is all within the rules, which is pretty much what you'd expect them to show. Let me know when they find an AAF that's been covered up.

I think the issue is more about the the TUE rules more than the athletes who are staying within them.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14775
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby MichaelB » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:21 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote: ...
I think the issue is more about the the TUE rules more than the athletes who are staying within them.
100% correct, and that's what I was trying to say.

The duck part for me is that people are using the system as it's allowed, but that doesn't make it right or correct or that 'allergies' are well timed.

The article on Cycling Tips where Jaeschke (sp ?) comments only just make it quack a little louder. Nothing illegal, just dubious, and the Wiggin's response to 'never had an injection' just makes multiple quacks.

The TUE system needs to be overhauled BADLY and QUICKLY.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:25 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: ...
I think the issue is more about the the TUE rules more than the athletes who are staying within them.
100% correct, and that's what I was trying to say.

The duck part for me is that people are using the system as it's allowed, but that doesn't make it right or correct or that 'allergies' are well timed.

The article on Cycling Tips where Jaeschke (sp ?) comments only just make it quack a little louder. Nothing illegal, just dubious, and the Wiggin's response to 'never had an injection' just makes multiple quacks.

The TUE system needs to be overhauled BADLY and QUICKLY.
Yes, so Wiggins won the 2012 TdF using performance enhancing drugs but because he had a TUE it wasn't technically cheating. But morally...

Everyone knows the TUE system is abused so why doesn't the UCI/WADA try to fix it? Hmmm.

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 11508
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: If you need to know, ask me
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby RonK » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:34 pm

biker jk wrote:
MichaelB wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote: ...
I think the issue is more about the the TUE rules more than the athletes who are staying within them.
100% correct, and that's what I was trying to say.

The duck part for me is that people are using the system as it's allowed, but that doesn't make it right or correct or that 'allergies' are well timed.

The article on Cycling Tips where Jaeschke (sp ?) comments only just make it quack a little louder. Nothing illegal, just dubious, and the Wiggin's response to 'never had an injection' just makes multiple quacks.

The TUE system needs to be overhauled BADLY and QUICKLY.
Yes, so Wiggins won the 2012 TdF using performance enhancing drugs but because he had a TUE it wasn't technically cheating. But morally...

Everyone knows the TUE system is abused so why doesn't the UCI/WADA try to fix it? Hmmm.
Well there are at least some doctors who a prepared to stick their neck out and say so...

As reported on Cycling Tips. Team Sky TUE controversy: Why one medical expert has real concerns
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby DavidS » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:00 pm

Apparently Wiggins took the asthma drug before the TdF as a preventative.

So, he took a drug for a medical condition, a medical condition he was not showing symptoms of at the time, that just happens to also enhance performance, and there's no issue?

I see an issue, within the rules or not.

I'll keep asking, what's with all these athletes with medical conditions which require medication which would otherwise be banned because they enhance performance?

Anyone else see an issue with the drug promoting doctor the crusading anti-doping Team Sky employed?

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14775
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby MichaelB » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:03 am

what is the collective noun for a load of ducks .......

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 11508
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: If you need to know, ask me
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby RonK » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:54 am

Team Sky
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby biker jk » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:56 am

No argument with me. I've long believed that Teak Sky's success is not via legitimate means. "Marginal gains" is a load of rubbish. While Wiggins' suspect TUEs are the focus right now I don't see how Froome revealing he had asthma after an expedited TUE from the dodgy Zorzoli, when he made no mention of it in his autobiography, has escaped similar scrutiny. I note that Swart. who is a friend of Froome and conducted the "tests" on him, argued that Wiggins TUEs were dodgy but Froome's above board. :roll:

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14775
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby MichaelB » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:16 am

MichaelB wrote:what is the collective noun for a load of ducks .......
To satisfy my own curiousity, the cn for ducks is a paddling or raft.

The paddling one is quite apt. It seems all calm on the surface, but I suspect that under water its legs everywhere.

The age old discussions comparing Sky to US Postal seem to be aligning more and more, albeit 'pushing the limits' of the rules vs outright cheating. :roll:

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:33 pm

It's a bit like tax. You do everything within the rules to minimise tax you have to pay (mad if you don't as Kerry Packer used to say). Sometimes those methods might seem wrong, but if them's the rules it's hard to complain about people working within them.

I have a hard time calling these TUEs cheating unless it can be shown they actually cross the doping line as defined by WADA. Once you start drawing your own line on doping, well then it's completely subjective. e.g. there are plenty of performance enhancing substances that are not prohibited. Would using them be illegitimate? Where do people draw the line?

My view has always been to leave the line drawing to WADA. While we might not necessarily agree with some specific items, by and large the line is right. Yes it can be improved, and WADA do modify things in order to improve the code.

I do make a distinction between what's ethical and what's doping. Doping is pretty clearly defined. What's ethical though is somewhat more subjective and is context specific. e.g. there is a big difference between what's ethical for an elite athlete and for a junior - a benign sports supplement might be perfectly fine for an elite athlete but unethical to provide to a junior.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 15469
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby trailgumby » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:18 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:It's a bit like tax. You do everything within the rules to minimise tax you have to pay (mad if you don't as Kerry Packer used to say). Sometimes those methods might seem wrong, but if them's the rules it's hard to complain about people working within them.
The distinction that seems to be missing from this argument is that the reason we battle sports doping is the impact on athletes' health.

There were a lot of deaths linked to EPO use where the cyclist's otherwise healthy hearts just stopped in their sleep, and there has been a long trail of death and damaged health from doping going back to the 1880s, using substances that were widely and legally available at the time, and even earlier with the ultra-distance running mania that preceded the cycling boom, through to the last few decades

Just because it isn't on the WADA's list of banned substances and methods doesn't mean its use or abuse is risk free.

Largely I agree with you Alex, however I'd encourage you to cast your net wider when considering the risks and ethics of supplementation.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby DavidS » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:29 pm

Just as it is wrong for Apple et al to manipulate the rules to pay little or no tax, it is wrong to manipulate doping rules to take performance enhancing drugs. It is cheating and we all know it and so do they.
DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
Posts: 4997
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:58 am

trailgumby wrote:
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:It's a bit like tax. You do everything within the rules to minimise tax you have to pay (mad if you don't as Kerry Packer used to say). Sometimes those methods might seem wrong, but if them's the rules it's hard to complain about people working within them.
The distinction that seems to be missing from this argument is that the reason we battle sports doping is the impact on athletes' health.

There were a lot of deaths linked to EPO use where the cyclist's otherwise healthy hearts just stopped in their sleep, and there has been a long trail of death and damaged health from doping going back to the 1880s, using substances that were widely and legally available at the time, and even earlier with the ultra-distance running mania that preceded the cycling boom, through to the last few decades

Just because it isn't on the WADA's list of banned substances and methods doesn't mean its use or abuse is risk free.

Largely I agree with you Alex, however I'd encourage you to cast your net wider when considering the risks and ethics of supplementation.
You know, so far no one has actually produced any documented evidence of all these supposed deaths being directly attributed to the misuse of EPO. Not that I'm saying we should be using it or that it's not dangerous, but running a line devoid of evidence/facts does not help the cause IMO.

I'm not arguing that protecting health is not a sound rationale for anti-doping but it is most certainly not it's only rationale.

But let's for a moment consider health being a key thing to protect and as a rationale for prohibiting a substance or method. Does anyone think that what an elite athlete does is healthy (and think not only of cycling but of a myriad of sports where bodies are put through all sorts of hell for years on end, often from a very young age)? Elite athletes constantly push their bodies to and beyond breaking point, not to mention the psychological health issues and a lot get spat out along the way (e.g. look at Michael Gallagher's example of the pressure and expectations leading to mental health issues and a contributing factor in succumbing to doping).

You have to wonder if sometimes strategic, well founded and properly supervised use of some currently prohibited treatments might actually be a way to protect an athlete's health.

Again I'm not advocating such an approach since all that will happen is a bit like the speed limit on a highway. When it's 100, people tend to do a little over that. When it's 110, well they tend to do just a over that. Unless they see a policeman and then people slow down. Where they get caught is when they don't realise they are being monitored.

Anti-doping rules sort of work the same way, and act as a speed limit which people bump up against or go over at times, and work out how to game the way the "police" patrol the doping highway. The only thing that will limit doping is the certainty of being caught. At present the risk of being caught (if you are not an idiot) is still very low. And if athletes are doing no more than what the rules permit, well it's hard to slam them for that, they have a highly competitive job to do.

In terms of whether something is to be prohibited, being a health risk is one rationale, but it's not a necessary one for a substance to be prohibited. There are many non-prohibited substance which are equally dangerous if not used with due care.

One of the rationale's for anti-doping is PR - to give sport the appearance of being clean, much more than it's about making it actually clean. That's quite obvious when you see how inadequate anti-doping action really is. The combined annual budgets of the world's anti doping agencies is less than what many individual sports stars earn. There is very little political will for doing much more.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users