The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

Bloody cleaners getting caught for doping. No sport is safe now.

It's comical.

Stupid bunch!

legendkillar wrote:It's comical.

Stupid bunch!

Who is stupid?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's comical.

Stupid bunch!

Who is stupid?

The Russian athletes getting busted still for meldonium

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's comical.

Stupid bunch!

Who is stupid?

The Russian athletes getting busted still for meldonium

Yeah, maybe you’re right.
They should’ve chosen to be asthmatic instead...

It's a bit stupid indeed, but clearly they have not followed the tennis news. I do not believe 1 second they took it knowing it was banned.

Eh? It's been banned for 2 years!! Where's he been living? Outer space??

Makes this offence the more stupid!

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's comical.

Stupid bunch!

Who is stupid?

The Russian athletes getting busted still for meldonium

Yeah, maybe you’re right.
They should’ve chosen to be asthmatic instead...

Or obtained a TUC...

legendkillar wrote:Eh? It's been banned for 2 years!! Where's he been living? Outer space??

Makes this offence the more stupid!

makes the offence less stupid to me. Trying to dope with a drug which can easily be traced for a negligent benefit especially for such a non-physical sport would have been dumber. It certainly looks stupid for us cause we have been talking about it. But some people who practice this kind of sport, mostly for fun (they don;t make millions out of it) and have always found Meldonium over the counter, it must have been a shock. I am sure if we suddenly ban Ibu you will find 2 years later some people in remote places who have not heard about it.

Who said he was trying to dope? People who take cocaine aren't doping as such.

Again if the properties are not performance enhancing, why take it still?

It's stupidity of the highest order. Like to trying to walk through metal detectors with a gun.

Tenez wrote:It's a bit stupid indeed, but clearly they have not followed the tennis news. I do not believe 1 second they took it knowing it was banned.

An Olympic competitor from a country which has been banned because of systemic doping, or 'alleged' systemic doping as you might have it.  One of that same country's most famous sportspeople, a global icon, one of the highest 'earning' sports people on the planet, has been banned for taking meldonium - and there is, you suggest, a climate in that country of the press and sports community believing that they are unfairly picked upon and targeted as dopers, including by being de facto excluded from the TUE circus and having their preferred medicines, no more or less legitimate than vasodilators &c &c, targeted for bans and you do not believe 1 second they knew meldonium was banned?

I agree that it seems bizarre that they took such a risk, and one conclusion from the illogical nature of such risk-taking is that they did not know it was banned - although I would suggest an unlikely one for the above reasons.  These people are international Olympic-level competitors - they (or at least their coaches or national sporting organisations of which they are members) do not live under rocks in Siberia emerging once every four years to compete before returning to an internet-free world.  But let's explore the possibilities if they did not know it was banned.  That opens up a whole host of questions about the attitude of such athletes, and/or their coaches and/or the national sporting bodies of which they are members towards PED's and taking medicines/drugs in general.  A quite extraordinary level of non-inquisitiveness despite being in one of the harshest spotlights for such matters ever created.  Such an extraordinary degree of 'sloppiness' on so many levels is, surely, just as bizarre as risk taking - frequently what looks on the surface to be a 'casual' approach towards PED's is in fact masking something more sinister.

So: (i) I don't see how you can jump to such a firm conclusion supposedly in favour of the athlete; and, (ii) you have anyway only jumped from a hot frying pan into a fire for the reasons above.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's a bit stupid indeed, but clearly they have not followed the tennis news. I do not believe 1 second they took it knowing it was banned.

An Olympic competitor from a country which has been banned because of systemic doping, or 'alleged' systemic doping as you might have it.  One of that same country's most famous sportspeople, a global icon, one of the highest 'earning' sports people on the planet, has been banned for taking meldonium - and there is, you suggest, a climate in that country of the press and sports community believing that they are unfairly picked upon and targeted as dopers, including by being de facto excluded from the TUE circus and having their preferred medicines, no more or less legitimate than vasodilators &c &c, targeted for bans and you do not believe 1 second they knew meldonium was banned?

yes I maintain. They would not have taken meldonium, had he she known it was banned. Ask anyone around you what is meldonium and whether it is banned or not I am pretty sure 95% of the planet don;t know. Though  I agree 99% if not 100% of high level competition know about it, I am pretty sure quite a few amateur olympians who care only about their sport, which they practice as "amateurs" would not have a clue why sharapova was banned. We are here tennis fans so for us it is indeed big news. But test around you and you will see.

So: (i) I don't see how you can jump to such a firm conclusion supposedly in favour of the athlete; and, (ii) you have anyway only jumped from a hot frying pan into a fire for the reasons above.

I don;t follow your logic much I must say. Simply because the alternative is easier to understand. I explained why and so do you why an athlete would risk to dope for such a marginal benefit. Ignorance is clearly the reason here. I don't excuse that it is just so.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's a bit stupid indeed, but clearly they have not followed the tennis news. I do not believe 1 second they took it knowing it was banned.

An Olympic competitor from a country which has been banned because of systemic doping, or 'alleged' systemic doping as you might have it.  One of that same country's most famous sportspeople, a global icon, one of the highest 'earning' sports people on the planet, has been banned for taking meldonium - and there is, you suggest, a climate in that country of the press and sports community believing that they are unfairly picked upon and targeted as dopers, including by being de facto excluded from the TUE circus and having their preferred medicines, no more or less legitimate than vasodilators &c &c, targeted for bans and you do not believe 1 second they knew meldonium was banned?

I agree that it seems bizarre that they took such a risk, and one conclusion from the illogical nature of such risk-taking is that they did not know it was banned - although I would suggest an unlikely one for the above reasons.  These people are international Olympic-level competitors - they (or at least their coaches or national sporting organisations of which they are members) do not live under rocks in Siberia emerging once every four years to compete before returning to an internet-free world.  But let's explore the possibilities if they did not know it was banned.  That opens up a whole host of questions about the attitude of such athletes, and/or their coaches and/or the national sporting bodies of which they are members towards PED's and taking medicines/drugs in general.  A quite extraordinary level of non-inquisitiveness despite being in one of the harshest spotlights for such matters ever created.  Such an extraordinary degree of 'sloppiness' on so many levels is, surely, just as bizarre as risk taking - frequently what looks on the surface to be a 'casual' approach towards PED's is in fact masking something more sinister.

So: (i) I don't see how you can jump to such a firm conclusion supposedly in favour of the athlete; and, (ii) you have anyway only jumped from a hot frying pan into a fire for the reasons above.

In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

legendkillar wrote:
In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

But!

At the same time ,    &  

Because pro superstars doped even to the naked eye are earning millions, yet all “they” manage to catch is a nobody playing a no sport from nowhere.

And strip him of medals just because they are Russian.

I think after this incident even Siberian grandmas  will be scared of buying meladonium.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

But!

At the same time ,    &  

Because pro superstars doped even to the naked eye are earning millions, yet all “they” manage to catch is a nobody playing a no sport from nowhere.

And strip him of medals just because they are Russian.

I think after this incident even Siberian grandmas  will be scared of buying meladonium.

Even the BBC article this case related to was even amazed at the levels he exceeded were not insurmountable to levels of performance. 

I don't think even the issue is around him being Russian in this case. 

It's the fact this drug has now been on the ban list for 2 years and despite the very limited enhancing properties it contains, athletes are still stupid enough to take it. 

No sympathy from me. 

The world is getting sillier!

legendkillar wrote:

In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

I have to say that on an evolutionary basis these things are to the advantage of the species.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

I have to say that on an evolutionary basis these things are to the advantage of the species.

Apparently 

As Ludwig Wittgenstein once said "Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is look and see how it does it"

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

I have to say that on an evolutionary basis these things are to the advantage of the species.

Apparently 

As Ludwig Wittgenstein once said "Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is look and see how it does it"

Interesting comment. I can see it to be correct in the long term....but in the short term corruption almost always prevails over logic.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

In fairness though everything needs signposts and labels.

Look at the idiots (successful in some cases) who sued tobacco companies and McDonalds for claiming they never knew or were not made aware that smoking damages your health and burgers and fries make you fat! 

Sometimes not only do you need to lead the horse to the water, but you have to drown the fucker too!

I have to say that on an evolutionary basis these things are to the advantage of the species.

Apparently 

As Ludwig Wittgenstein once said "Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is look and see how it does it"

Interesting comment. I can see it to be correct in the long term....but in the short term corruption almost always prevails over logic.

Indeed. People will always serve their own interests. Think we can all be guilty of that. 

Which when you look at the natural make up of animals, like ourselves, you have to say there is more than meets the eye if we as a species conduct ourselves much differently to other species that work together for the greater good

Here's one for Tenez - will a GMC investigation into Dr. Richard Freeman uncover the delivery of testosterone patches to the National Cycling Centre c7years ago?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5451759/Banned-testosterone-patches-ordered-Team-Sky-HQ.html

If so, was there an attempt to cover this up, or was it a mistake...?

Freeman told UK Anti-Doping officials that they were not for use by riders.

Yep Barry. This is what we may find out but once again, it's always after the harm is done. And this is what we will never know that really keeps me curious. This is why I don't trust anything but look at results. and the results are that tiny UK won more medals than corrupt China and Russia. No different than the RRunners suddenly able to run for longer than anyone before.

Wow, that’s amazing, I didn’t know you could absorb testosterone through skin patches.

Doping is so creative...

That aside, before we get too excited, what is the (realistic) best case scenario of all this discovery?

Hopefully the judge does not destroy the evidence like in Fuentes case.

noleisthebest wrote:
That aside, before we get too excited, what is the (realistic) best case scenario of all this discovery?

Death by a thousand cuts.  Proper journalists now don't believe Sky, and probably UK Cycling too.  The cheerleader brigade in the press and politics and on the BBC are a long way from taking that step and, as ever, people prefer to pin it all on one easy scapegaot (i.e. Harvey Weinstein) than face up to more troubling realities.  So if one person is done we'll come down on them like a ton of bricks (maybe it will be Froome?) but once that burst of frustration is over we'll return to our usual comfortable hypocrisy that our elite sport set up is not tainted in its way like others (and Tenez, I still think that Russia is on a different page).

Now we are no longer trying to get the Olympics to the UK there's a case for dropping funding for this elite sport nonsense dramatically - we are not the GDR, we don't owe these people meal tickets, the 'glory' is not worth the money, they don't change participation or stop us becoming obese, and the embarrassment is on its way.

barrystar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
That aside, before we get too excited, what is the (realistic) best case scenario of all this discovery?

Death by a thousand cuts.  Proper journalists now don't believe Sky, and probably UK Cycling too.  The cheerleader brigade in the press and politics and on the BBC are a long way from taking that step and, as ever, people prefer to pin it all on one easy scapegaot (i.e. Harvey Weinstein) than face up to more troubling realities.  So if one person is done we'll come down on them like a ton of bricks (maybe it will be Froome?) but once that burst of frustration is over we'll return to our usual comfortable hypocrisy that our elite sport set up is not tainted in its way like others (and Tenez, I still think that Russia is on a different page).

Now we are no longer trying to get the Olympics to the UK there's a case for dropping funding for this elite sport nonsense dramatically - we are not the GDR, we don't owe these people meal tickets, the 'glory' is not worth the money, they don't change participation or stop us becoming obese, and the embarrassment is on its way.

But that’s the idea...to keep masses obese watching heros on TV and continue to promise them better NHS, education etc...

I am still living for the day when Nadal gets exposed and stripped of all his RGs etc.

I know it’s probably never going to happen, but it would be greeeeeat!

barrystar wrote:[...(and Tenez, I still think that Russia is on a different page).

Then you must admit that Russia must be very bad at "systemic doping" then cause being over twice the UK population and having doping on a different scale they managed to gather much less gold and overall medals than the Brits.

That's why I believe you are way too much partial on this matter. You make a good effort to show balance moderation but deep down the biais is too visible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/43280081

And so it begins...

Athletics and Coe: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/sebastian-coe-inquiry-russia-doping

Cycling and Wiggins: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-report-david-brailsford-inquiry

Can Tenez point us to the Russian Parliamentary report investigating allegations against Russian athletes?  Or are they too frightened of being bumped off like whistle blowers and journalists?

barrystar wrote:Athletics and Coe: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/sebastian-coe-inquiry-russia-doping

Cycling and Wiggins: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-report-david-brailsford-inquiry

Can Tenez point us to the Russian Parliamentary report investigating allegations against Russian athletes?  Or are they too frightened of being bumped off like whistle blowers and journalists?

Barry,

with WADA and ITF banning Russian athletes en masse, and at the same time protecting their own with TUEs, don’t you think all these comittees and “bodies” are just a smokescreen for the masses to believe what righteous and honest country they live in.

I am not denying ex communist regimes are not corrupted, they just don’t bother about facade and packaging.

Even this “digital etc” institution, DCMS (they sound like some Orwelian creation)...who are they all of a sudden to be issuing justice and saying what’s moral what’s not...

I guess we know where we stand - but I find the, 'poor old Russia, they are just doing what everybody else does but are more open about it' rather sinister.

We have plenty to be embarrassed about, but as the DCMS report and loads of pieces of proper journalism show, it is possible to challenge 'heroes' like Brailsford, Wiggins, Froome et al safely and to get a proper hearing over here.  

Contrary to your assertion, Russia is so worried about "facade and packaging" that journalists and whistle-blowers who dare to expose such stuff face threats, intimidation, violence and, ultimately, death because the corruption goes right up to the President.

The fact that what is going on in Russia is many degrees worse than what happens here is no cause for celebration - I think the bar needs to be way higher than that - but the difference is there, and it's clear.

barrystar wrote:I guess we know where we stand - but I find the, 'poor old Russia, they are just doing what everybody else does but are more open about it' rather sinister.

I only defend Russia cause you think you are "whiter" than them when everything points to the countrary. When everything goes wrong in the UK...it's Russian's fault! the press is laughable in that respect.

We have plenty to be embarrassed about, but as the DCMS report and loads of pieces of proper journalism show, it is possible to challenge 'heroes' like Brailsford, Wiggins, Froome et al safely and to get a proper hearing over here.  

There is always a but with you. Let's just be embarrassed instead of pointing the speck in the other one's eye. The UK is the new RDA result wise...and it seems more and more doping wise! Those are the facts.

Contrary to your assertion, Russia is so worried about "facade and packaging" that journalists and whistle-blowers who dare to expose such stuff face threats, intimidation, violence and, ultimately, death because the corruption goes right up to the President.

So says the Daily Mail and and the Sun. Putin has given Russia back to the Russian... cause the guy before him Yeltsin gave all Russia's assets to minorities who fled to the West. This is why Putin has such a bad reputation here. He is not perfect but at least he seems to care about his country and that is what we ask to a president. Not like yours and mine in France who execute the orders of the White House instead of listening to their people. At least you have a bit more hope now in the UK since Brexit...we have still traitors leading France.

The fact that what is going on in Russia is many degrees worse than what happens here is no cause for celebration - I think the bar needs to be way higher than that - but the difference is there, and it's clear.

No proof for that. The facts as I mentioned are that you have more gold medals than China and Russia, in spite, (or is it thanks to?) a huge bunch of asthmatics!

Wiggins said in a statement:"...I strongly refute the claim that any drug was used without medical need."

That is what I have problem with and this is what I call State (or establishment) sponsored doping.

Wiggins there does not deny taking drugs, he took them with teh doctors consent!

This is plain wrong and I don;t understand why it doesn't raise people's eyebrow.

How on earth can we allow someone with an handicap to take a drug which makes him stronger than the competition?

Drugs should be banned...no ifs and no buts. But by allowing them through TUEs they can help perfectly healthy people to becime better than the field. State sponsored doping at its best.

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:Who was ever in doubt about Froome?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916

I am sorry to say gents but there are a growing list of suspicious top GB athletes. Maybe GB should be banned from the Olympics with the Russians.

Don't be dorky Tenez.  

I'd be the first to accept that merely being British does not make an individual athlete more likely to be clean than an athlete taken at random from any other country; I also accept that our media covers this sort of thing differently for British athletes in a way that can border on nausea-inducing.  However, that's a world apart from state-sponsored doping unearthed in the case of Russia; and even in your obvious delight at Froome's disaster you surely have the ability to accept that?

It's always necessary to be wary about cyclists - that said I have been on the side of thinking Froome is probably one of the clean ones.  I'll await what transpires with interest here - Sky's great selling point has been attention to detail and marginal gains, so the precise explanation for how this happened will be very important, as will an ability to back it up with independent corroboration which will no doubt be taxing Sky's finest as we speak.  Precedents for other riders and salbutamol suggests that it's likely to be held to be an offence which results in a ban and the removal of the Vuelta title.  We'll see - I rather liked the insights in this post https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/.

@Tenez - you don't defend Russia in response to my criticisms.  This is how our 'discussion' started off.  It was my response to you making an equivalence between Russia and GB in terms of organised doping after the McLaren report.  The 'but' you don't like was a 'however' this time, but I was hardly collapsing into the tropes you seek to parody.  In fact I said that I thought Froome would be found guilty of a doping offence and backed that up with a highly sceptical blog post.

And whilst we are at it, here is the jingoistic flag-waving Guardian reporting on the reception for whistle-blowers back home: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/nov/17/russian-olympic-official-says-doping-whistleblower-should-be-executed

My response is the same Barry. It's just a different form of state/establishment doping. Letting Lance, Wiggins and so many others we won't find out making their sponsors grab as much money as possible while at the top then, throwing them to the vultures when that money making machine tires.

Do you accept at least that Russia and China sponsored doping regimes are not that efficient if they cannot gather more medals than a tiny country? It's strange isn't it? Those countries who can send men to the moon have amazingly sophisticated engineering yet in sport and in site of a huge effort and immense population, they cannot win as much.

Oh also, in the same way I am extremely sceptical about the sport organisations (WADA, IOC, UCI, LTA, etc...) I am indeed very sceptical about the McLaren report. Had they put their effort in looking in instead of out, they would have found out about Lance, Froome, Wiggins way before the Russian's way.

barrystar wrote:I guess we know where we stand - but I find the, 'poor old Russia, they are just doing what everybody else does but are more open about it' rather sinister.

We have plenty to be embarrassed about, but as the DCMS report and loads of pieces of proper journalism show, it is possible to challenge 'heroes' like Brailsford, Wiggins, Froome et al safely and to get a proper hearing over here.  

Contrary to your assertion, Russia is so worried about "facade and packaging" that journalists and whistle-blowers who dare to expose such stuff face threats, intimidation, violence and, ultimately, death because the corruption goes right up to the President.

The fact that what is going on in Russia is many degrees worse than what happens here is no cause for celebration - I think the bar needs to be way higher than that - but the difference is there, and it's clear.

Barry,

I really have no reason to “defend” “poor, old Russia”...they are a calculating political force just like any other country...and let Serbia down many times (mind you, this was before Putin).

What I find annoying is the double standards.

How many UK or US athletes were banned from Rio Olympics?

We should all try and pull the beam from our eye first before we can point at a speck in someone else’s.

To me, those are just really immature political games and we’ve had those since the Cold War days.

As someone who loves sport, I don’t really care about the ego trip of which country wins most medals.
I am annoyed sport is ruined by money and athletes are dropping dead like flies with cardiac arrest in their sleep (Italian footballer over the weekend).

Instad of being a picture of health, pros are now walking wounded.

And it all starts with allowing athletes to dope.

barrystar wrote:Athletics and Coe: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/sebastian-coe-inquiry-russia-doping

Cycling and Wiggins: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/team-sky-report-david-brailsford-inquiry

Can Tenez point us to the Russian Parliamentary report investigating allegations against Russian athletes?  Or are they too frightened of being bumped off like whistle blowers and journalists?

It's quite damning the whole report. Wiggins hasn't a leg to stand on.

For me, he and Brailsford should be stripped of their knighthoods. 

Absolute disgrace. I envisage a lot of British Athletes are going to be nervous as I can imagine retrospective investigations. 

Coe has to go.

The Report feels like a decent piece of work, worth a read: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/366.pdf

Absolutely damning about IAAF, Coe, Brailsford, Sky, the famous jiffy bag, and too many doctors.  Wiggins's TdF win has been dumped on and looks completely shabby.  The report reminds me of another of my iron rules - don't offer gongs, and knighthoods in particular, to sports people until they have been retired for a while.  They can wait, and we can avoid looking silly in two ways, first if they are exposed as cheats, and second, having our athletes called "Sir" or "Dame" in competition looks anachronistic and a bit embarrassing if they are cuffed, as sooner or later one of them will be, by a superior Mr. Mrs. or Ms. &c. from somewhere else.

Para 106 is one for Tenez, it's very nicely put, it echoes what they were told by a number of experts and I agree that it requires an answer;

The TUE system needs to be kept under permanent review, but the question inevitably remains, that if an athlete is so ill that they can only compete using a drug that is otherwise banned during competition, then why are they competing at all? From the expert evidence received by the Committee, a case can be made that better management of an athlete’s long term health conditions, and particularly asthma, should remove the need to apply for a TUE.

Para 111 is another good one - my sister is a Doctor and she said that treating Wiggins for asthma with triamcinolone made no sense at all.

The Committee has considered evidence about the performance-enhancing properties of corticosteroids, and how their use can be avoided in the treatment of long-term conditions such as asthma. We believe that WADA should introduce a complete ban on their use. We were also concerned to hear evidence about the negative health impacts for riders resulting from the abuse of the painkiller Tramadol. Again, we believe that WADA should consider introducing a ban on the use of Tramadol.

I have to give you credit Barry for having the patience to read such long reports.

Reg &106 I agree with the first part. Why on earth an unhealthy athlete should be helped to the point of becoming fitter than the healthy field?

I am not sure I understand the second part of 106. Are they saying an asthmatic person should not require a TUE? If so I disagree.

They are referring back to this:

66. Some medical experts were of the view that having to resort to the use of drugs such as triamcinolone to treat asthma was a sign that the athletes and their medical advisers were not managing their condition effectively. They were of the view that corticosteroids are such an aggressive form of treatment that they should be reserved for emergencies, and used only for a brief period of time. One noted of the British Olympic swimming team (of whom 70% suffered from asthma and most had lung capacity of only 50%), with the effective management of their asthma, none of them required any banned treatments and therefore none needed a TUE. Professor Brian Lipworth of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research said that it would be “utterly bonkers” to prescribe drugs like triamcinolone to treat asthma, adding “there are so many alternatives which are just as effective but with less severe adverse effects.”8

Absolutely agree with all what was said from that report barry.

TUE needs scrapping as it is fallable to the highest degree and this case and I suspect many others highlight the abuse of that system.

And your latest post. Hence why doping has potential long term health risks. Doctors get away scot free these days when they are ones loading the smoking guns. Athletes certainly need to be more vigilant as it's their health and legacy that pays the price.

Ok. But in any case there should be no TUEs in competition.

I find WADA and IOC such hypocritical organisations banning Meldonium while authorising those other drugs under TUEs.

What some of us have been saying, in substance, that it was a continental "sport" war played at a higher level has gained credibility.

I can see why the TUE system developed - these people have a very short shelf-life, the fans want to see them, and then some Doctor turns up and helps devise a system which is intended strictly to 'help the person back to where they would be with purely therapeutic assistance' and everyone's a winner.  I can understand why a sports authority would give into desperate players and the people around them to create such a system - but the lines have to be clear and carefully drawn and kept under review.

I am much less sympathetic to hear that the system involves doling out such extreme drugs with obvious performance enhancing capabilities as those which Wiggins took - setting up a system with an honest aim is one thing, but you must still keep an eye on its robustness vs. abuse as it goes along, and this clearly has not happened adequately.

One way might be to introduce a bit of daylight - WADA could publicize the global list of TUE's without naming the person at the end of each month - so the public, including 'normal' Doctors, can see how much of what drugs are being prescribed to sports people for 'therapeutic' reasons by reference to condition and drug.  This would most likely have rather a salutary effect on what sports Doctors were prepared to prescribe, as well as getting quick feedback on whether the system was sanctioning PED's.

Oh - and Tenez might enjoy paragraphs 9-15 about investigation of evidence of blood doping by Russian athletes held on the IAAF database....!

I cannot see any reason to use drugs in competition. The fans have actually left the sport since....so maybe you keep the fans happy in the short term but in the long run they lose fans. Of course you will always have those immature fans who want their hero to win at all costs but I am pretty sure than less and less people are interested in sports where lots of cheating has been reported.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bradley-wiggins-invested-tax-avoidance-scheme-that-used-charity-front-report-1665293

Wiggins under more scrutiny.

He's coming across as right bastard! Or as Daniel would say a proper cunt!

When the vultures (the press) are at it, they are relentless.

Tenez wrote:When the vultures (the press) are at it, they are relentless.

Agreed - and it doesn't get things changed.  We cut down a few tall poppies and sate our fury at being taken advantage of on a few 'villains', but what really needs addressing are far more difficult issues which end up being about us on a daily bassis as much as sports (similar points can be made about Harvey Weinstein and #metoo)

1. Yes - PED's in sport, the abuse of TUE's, whether that system should be abandoned entirely or merely tightened.  What do we do about PED's more generally, are we more worried about unfairly treating one 'clean' competitor than we are about letting 9 cheats through the door created by rules such as 'beyond reasonable doubt', and should we be?  How much hypocrisy can we live with (more than most of us want to admit is the short answer), how much 'purity' do we insist on, what is unethical what is/should be against sporting rules - what is the overlap between the two?

2. The consequences of the commercialisation of sport - I'm not one for trying to get private money out of it, but I am one for being a bit more open eyed about what it is we are seeing and what the effects will be on us - go to 4 in particular.

3. Whether we should fund elite sport as taxpayers- whether it's merely 21st century pane e circo or has something to contribute to society.  Personally I think more the former, that its importance to a wider society is hugely over-trumpeted by supporters, journalists, and politicians.  I think that more difficult and larger funding and policy questions make a difference like not concreting over Hackney marshes and leaving open ground for children to play on rather than trying to guide/steer everything with coaches and focus and expensive sports centres is better for our health.  Most of us don't need to be 'sporty' or excel, we merely need to be fit for life, and if enjoying a bit of incompetent sporting participation is part of that, then great.

4. Personally I love the sports I follow, I make my own decision about which sports are tainted, I don't hold any athletes up as model human beings outside their arenas (even the sainted Fed), and I am content to accept that whatever money I spend on following or participating is my look out.  Politicians need to start saying that a bit more - perhaps particularly to football fans who complain about ticket prices or shirt prices.  They don't have to go or to pay - being a supporter is not a birthright which it is a fan's right to enjoy at modest prices or a politician's duty to protect.  We need to appreciate that from the punter's point of view sport is an entertainment industry; we have more control over decisions we make about using our time and our money than we seem to want to accept.

5. Note the absence of world weary cynicism above...!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/results

Simon Yates....takes over Froome.

Asthmatics are like trains....one can hide another one!

This asthmatic excuse is a joke. When will we finally stamp on those drug users!

A bit of draw rigging here....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44170578

It could surprise Barry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/44440473

I am still trying to work out how it got in the pasta??

legendkillar wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/44440473

I am still trying to work out how it got in the pasta??

That’s why I like how Sharapova handled her case. She held the press conference and admitted the mistake.

The only athlete I’ve ever seen dignified in that tricky situation.