TUE: Truly Unruly Exploitation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/37691574

They need to be careful! I sense the spotlight is about to get bigger!

Yes but I find it dirty that those racers who have used TUEs (Froome) questions others, more so his compatriot.

It's more than dirty - it's sickening.

Andy Murray has been speaking to the Daily Telegraph about therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs), saying that athletes should publish their use of them as soon as they are granted.
A TUE allows an athlete, for medical reasons, to take a prescribed substance or have treatment that is otherwise prohibited.  
"I don’t think every TUE is bad, but there are TUEs that are abused, for sure," he told the paper.
"And I do think that now is the time when all TUEs should be transparent."

And I do think that now is the time when all TUEs should be transparent."
=============================
Now is too late! Thats why Murrsy says now is the time.

I wonder if this article is going to be published in western media...and the Beacon of Truth - the BBC.

Former top 20 Czech WTA player, Koukalova, is highlighting WADA's double standards: Serena being allowed TUE which apparently has the same effect as heroin, and herself frustrated with WADA's slowness and reluctance to get permission for her inhalers.

It's good that players are speaking out....though nobody seems to care.


http://www.webnoviny.sk/tenis/clanok/1114421-koukalova-serena-ma-povolenu-latku-s-ucinkom-ako-heroin/

I haven't studied it in any detail but weren't Serena's TUEs all for short term exemptions, whilst she was injured?

It wouldn't surprise me though if the likes of Serena or Sharapova or Kvitova did get TUEs processed quicker than someone ranked in the 200s. I'd guess the top players have some priority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/5fed88a9-4b6b-4263-a425-f7ab92fe6a64

Even though I am not a fan of UFC, just another hilarious story.

sir bradly wiggins retires from cycling...
i dont think that that will take the heat off him or team sky...

seems a little suspicious to me 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/28/bradley-wiggins-announces-retirement-from-cycling

Saw this on twitter

https://twitter.com/paulkimmage/status/814148637206937606

Yep....he retires but like all cyclists he doped. So Sir....my ass!

Absolute coward!!

The heat isn't going anywhere wiggo!

Isn't this a non-story? He had said he was retiring at the end of this year ages ago - way before the TUE issue came to light. Hasn't he just confirmed what everyone already knew?

I don't see it as a non story to be honest. The timing of the actual execution is quite amusing in light of the controversy that is following and I hope he is hung and quartered.

My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

NITB wrote:My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

ummm...because theres a lot of suspicion around him
you could ask the same question of lance armstrong...why use him as a scape goat?
because he was guilty...

Slippy wrote:Isn't this a non-story? He had said he was retiring at the end of this year ages ago - way before the TUE issue came to light. Hasn't he just confirmed what everyone already knew?

wasnt aware of that..but he is retiring under a cloud of suspicion, bet he never thought that that would be case when he first decided to retire,its not as convenient as he may have thought it would turn out to be as LK also said,it certainly wont take the heat off him

Oh, I agree with that - clearly the fact he has retired shouldn't stop any ongoing investigation. I was only addressing the posts which implied he was retiring because of the accusations. I don't think we can read any guilt into a retirement which was always planned in any event!

I haven't really got my head around this mystery package story though. Is anyone able to bring me up to speed?

Veejay wrote:

NITB wrote:My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

ummm...because theres a lot of suspicion around him
you could ask the same question of lance armstrong...why use him as a scape goat?
because he was guilty...

Yes, but why him?
Why not Laura Trott or anyone else from GB Olympic team?

Aren't they just as suspicious?

I understand Armstrong got cocky, not suspicious...hasn't he passed all his tests as clean?

Because Wiggins is the one who received a TUE which appears potentially dubious and an unidentified package?

NITB wrote:

Veejay wrote:

NITB wrote:My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

ummm...because theres a lot of suspicion around him
you could ask the same question of lance armstrong...why use him as a scape goat?
because he was guilty...

Yes, but why him?
Why not Laura Trott or anyone else from GB Olympic team?

Aren't they just as suspicious?

I understand Armstrong got cocky, not suspicious...hasn't he passed all his tests as clean?

obviously he will come under more scrutiny because he is the most high profile athlete linked to the scandal so naturally the media will target or mention him more then the rest
he is also the one who actually won prestigious titles under suspicious circumstances 
i would like to believe that the TUE was genuine but unfortunately in the world of cycling you cant help but be pessimistic

NITB wrote:

Veejay wrote:

NITB wrote:My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

ummm...because theres a lot of suspicion around him
you could ask the same question of lance armstrong...why use him as a scape goat?
because he was guilty...

Yes, but why him?
Why not Laura Trott or anyone else from GB Olympic team?

Aren't they just as suspicious?

I understand Armstrong got cocky, not suspicious...hasn't he passed all his tests as clean?

No. He failed one in '99. Covered up.

NITB wrote:My only question regarding Wiggins is why did they choose him as a scapegoat and not someone else?
He looked quite a character and likable...

Has he irked anyone?

Such the wrong attitude towards doping. Likability should not come into the equation in relation to doping.

He has a lot to answer for. The blanket statement of "We didn't break any rules" is more or less a declaration of we can dope legally.

What are you expecting to happen though LK? If he genuinely didn't break any rules then he's fine. He cannot be punished for anything and doesn't have anything to answer - morally grey or not. I'm not sure what further can be done in relation to the TUE. He says it was for asthma, which was accepted at the time. Even if you think it looks dubious, what do you think should be done?

In my view, it casts doubt (not conclusive proof) over his achievements but, based on what is currently in the public domain, no more than that.

I couldn't find the full list, but this article offers 50+ names.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/37371057

From experience, we know that only smallfry, insignificant names get caught and exposed (Odesnik, pre-slam Cilic, Troicki etc).

And usually east European or Chinese athletes.

From what I read here, Lance Armstrong was exposed because of his arrogance.

That is why I am surprised with Wiggins being chosen.

He was "good" for British cycling...gave it a funky face.

Anyone else from that list could have been chosen as a scapegoat to show the usual WADA's "diligence".

wasnt bradly wiggins's TUE exposed by the fancy bears hackers first?
so this has nothing to do with being " chosen" 
it was from there that the scandal of him and team sky broke
it seems to me like he is being protected rather then chosen
certain sports reporters have gone after him in the media,but it looks like the whole team sky's shenanigans is being swept under the rug
theres been virtually no follow through since the story first broke

Slippy wrote:What are you expecting to happen though LK? If he genuinely didn't break any rules then he's fine. He cannot be punished for anything and doesn't have anything to answer - morally grey or not. I'm not sure what further can be done in relation to the TUE. He says it was for asthma, which was accepted at the time. Even if you think it looks dubious, what do you think should be done?

In my view, it casts doubt (not conclusive proof) over his achievements but, based on what is currently in the public domain, no more than that.

have to agree with that

Slippy wrote:What are you expecting to happen though LK? If he genuinely didn't break any rules then he's fine. He cannot be punished for anything and doesn't have anything to answer - morally grey or not. I'm not sure what further can be done in relation to the TUE. He says it was for asthma, which was accepted at the time. Even if you think it looks dubious, what do you think should be done?

In my view, it casts doubt (not conclusive proof) over his achievements but, based on what is currently in the public domain, no more than that.

Case closed then.

Slippy wrote:What are you expecting to happen though LK? If he genuinely didn't break any rules then he's fine. He cannot be punished for anything and doesn't have anything to answer - morally grey or not. I'm not sure what further can be done in relation to the TUE. He says it was for asthma, which was accepted at the time. Even if you think it looks dubious, what do you think should be done?

In my view, it casts doubt (not conclusive proof) over his achievements but, based on what is currently in the public domain, no more than that.

Overhaul Slippy. The big question is why did he require a TUE for a drug he didn't require when his Asthma was being controlled by an inhaler which wasn't banned?

Cases like this Slippy would completely discredit the whole TUE process. It needs to start somewhere and this would be a fine place to start.

'Sick' athletes who succeed against the more 'Healthy' athletes is akin to the 'Bad Back Brigade' who make a living off the government tit. Find the right doctor and you can't lose.

I am not one who wants to just sit back and go 'oh it was not against the rules so that's fine'

excellent article...really worth reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html?_r=2

Do you think Trump dopes? I must say his orangèe face looks suspect to me.

Tenez wrote:Do you think Trump dopes? I must say his orangèe face looks suspect to me.

orange is the new black 

couldnt find the lance armstrong thread so i decided to post it here
u.s law suit seeking $100 million from lance armstrong is heading to trail
this is breaking new ground in doping scandals where cheaters could be sued and face legal action 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/us-lawsuit-seeking-100-million-lance-armstrong-heads-trial/

Yes but it's absolutely discusting that US postal made a fortune on Lance's back, most likely knowing it all while now trying to cash a second time.

If sponsors were forced to give their customers back their money (cause the end user/consumser is the ultimate stuffed turkey here) then tehy would be more careful about who they sponsor.