RugbyRebels

Not sure if we are allowed to talk about this on here?

Some interesting names on the TUE lists. And one or two British names in particular that I am uneasy about.

Some British names whose previous comments run contrary to these leaks.

You're concerned about athletes having TUEs? Are you sure that you understand what a TUE is?

The whole point of these hacks and leak by the FSB is to undermine the system.

Back when I was a kid, the kids with asthma usually brought a note from their mother, these days they are world record holders and champions

BBD wrote:Back when I was a kid, the kids with asthma usually brought a note from their mother, these days they are world record holders and champions

I was that kid with asthma who brought a note from my mother.

Thanks to the teams who developed corticosterioids and salbutamol, I can participate in sport like everyone else.

Of course, I am just a ba' hair away from achieving a world record, and I would be Triathlon World Champion but I was, er, busy that weekend.

I think we should be ok pointing out inconsistencies/what is well known?

Froome and his TUE have been public knowledge for a while.

Trott has long known issues with her lungs so not surprising she has some sort of asthma.

Wiggins and Farah records seem inconsistent with what they have said publicly.

Looking at some of the big names and British names in the leaks some appear to be signed after the expiry date of the TUE. So are these retrospectively being granted? That is a slippery slope.

It's extremely unhelpful. Yes, TUE's need to be talked about, but not like this. We shouldn't necessarily focus on individual athletes, especially individual athletes with disclosed TUEs, but on the system and what can be done to improve it.

Andy Bull for the Guardian again makes the relevant points...

Big D wrote:I think we should be ok pointing out inconsistencies/what is well known?

Froome and his TUE have been public knowledge for a while.

Trott has long known issues with her lungs so not surprising she has some sort of asthma.

Wiggins and Farah records seem inconsistent with what they have said publicly.

Looking at some of the big names and British names in the leaks some appear to be signed after the expiry date of the TUE. So are these retrospectively being granted? That is a slippery slope.

I don't see how you think Farah's TUEs are anything remarkable. He's had two, time-limited TUEs - one for a single anti-inflammatory injection in 2008, and one in 2014 after he collapsed and received painkiller and was treated with an IV drip (I don't think a saline drip requires a TUE).

Neither of these is going to promote long term performance gains.

As much as I hate to say it, Wiggins' timings for TUE use is worrying - all prior to grand tours. The chap from The Times who played a big part in questioning/hounding Armstrong, David Walsh, I think, doesn't seem too happy about it. His major issues are the timings, the medication used, a particular team doctor employed at the time and the inconsistencies against Wiggins' autobiography. However, he does go on to say that he's spent plenty of time immersed in Team Sky and at no point has he even suspected foul play.

Farah's seems more easily explained, if still a bit worrying, but when put with the ongoing investigation in to Salazar......

As an aside, does anybody think that asthma treatments should be banned? After all, it is medication which improves performance. As someone who suffered with respiratory problems that sometimes impeded sporting activities I don't think it should, but, after all, it is a is a physiological weakness and the medication for it does improve performance. Why is the respiratory system treated differently to, as an example, muscles? Or, do I have it all wrong and are asthma induced issues deemed an injury and any medication is therefore treated the same as, say, a painkiller.

Stones of granite wrote:

Big D wrote:I think we should be ok pointing out inconsistencies/what is well known?

Froome and his TUE have been public knowledge for a while.

Trott has long known issues with her lungs so not surprising she has some sort of asthma.

Wiggins and Farah records seem inconsistent with what they have said publicly.

Looking at some of the big names and British names in the leaks some appear to be signed after the expiry date of the TUE. So are these retrospectively being granted? That is a slippery slope.

I don't see how you think Farah's TUEs are anything remarkable. He's had two, time-limited TUEs - one for a single anti-inflammatory injection in 2008, and one in 2014 after he collapsed and received painkiller and was treated with an IV drip (I don't think a saline drip requires a TUE).

Neither of these is going to promote long term performance gains.

I didn't say they were remarkable nor was I attempting too, I said he and Wiggins TUEs were inconsistent with what he has said publicly. Farah has said a few times he has only had 1 TUE, although he may have alluded to a 2nd in a Sky interview.

On my other point I guess the "retrospective" nature of the dates they are signed is possibly when doctor notes are received.

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate to say it, Wiggins' timings for TUE use is worrying - all prior to grand tours. The chap from The Times who played a big part in questioning/hounding Armstrong, David Walsh, I think, doesn't seem too happy about it. His major issues are the timings, the medication used, a particular team doctor employed at the time and the inconsistencies against Wiggins' autobiography. However, he does go on to say that he's spent plenty of time immersed in Team Sky and at no point has he even suspected foul play.

Farah's seems more easily explained, if still a bit worrying, but when put with the ongoing investigation in to Salazar......

As an aside, does anybody think that asthma treatments should be banned? After all, it is medication which improves performance. As someone who suffered with respiratory problems that sometimes impeded sporting activities I don't think it should, but, after all, it is a is a physiological weakness and the medication for it does improve performance. Why is the respiratory system treated differently to, as an example, muscles? Or, do I have it all wrong and are asthma induced issues deemed an injury and any medication is therefore treated the same as, say, a painkiller.

There is nothing remotely worrying about Farah's TUE's. I haven't looked at Wiggins' yet.

You can fuck right off with banning asthma treatments. Salbutamol only improves performance in very specific cases, and it needs to be taken immediately before (or during) the event to have an effect. I can assure you that corticosteroid that I use does not improve performance, it enables me to take part in sport without having an asthma attack, but it also has side effects that affect my long term performance like suppression my immune system sufficiently that I get a high frequency of chest infections. It doesn't have performance enhancing ability.

The whole fact that some people are now expressing doubts about athletes like Farah suggests that the FSBs agitprop campaign is a success.

A big well done to Putin, the world anti-doping campaign is now in danger of going to into meltdown, with who knows what consequences for sport and athletes.

Stones of granite wrote:The whole fact that some people are now expressing doubts about athletes like Farah suggests that the FSBs agitprop campaign is a success.

A big well done to Putin, the world anti-doping campaign is now in danger of going to into meltdown, with who knows what consequences for sport and athletes.

I am no more concerned about Farah than a week ago. Do I think he is clean? Yes until proven otherwise the same with most other athletes. But that doesn't mean when Salazar and Rupp are being looked at suspiciously and between 2010 and 2011 Farah took 40s off his 10k pb that I can blame people for looking at him with an element of suspicion.

Personally I believe he is clean, I actually believe he is easily one of Britain's greatest track athletes but admittedly has undoubtedly benefitted from competing in the current era which isn't his fault and a discussion for another day.

I suppose they've tried to keep the message on performance enhancing drugs as simple as possible, i.e. they're banned, and clearly that isn't the case. Perhaps now there is a need for more openness which will include some education to make clearer why some exemptions are granted

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate to say it, Wiggins' timings for TUE use is worrying - all prior to grand tours. The chap from The Times who played a big part in questioning/hounding Armstrong, David Walsh, I think, doesn't seem too happy about it. His major issues are the timings, the medication used, a particular team doctor employed at the time and the inconsistencies against Wiggins' autobiography. However, he does go on to say that he's spent plenty of time immersed in Team Sky and at no point has he even suspected foul play.

Farah's seems more easily explained, if still a bit worrying, but when put with the ongoing investigation in to Salazar......

As an aside, does anybody think that asthma treatments should be banned? After all, it is medication which improves performance. As someone who suffered with respiratory problems that sometimes impeded sporting activities I don't think it should, but, after all, it is a is a physiological weakness and the medication for it does improve performance. Why is the respiratory system treated differently to, as an example, muscles? Or, do I have it all wrong and are asthma induced issues deemed an injury and any medication is therefore treated the same as, say, a painkiller.

There is nothing remotely worrying about Farah's TUE's. I haven't looked at Wiggins' yet.

You can fuck right off with banning asthma treatments. Salbutamol only improves performance in very specific cases, and it needs to be taken immediately before (or during) the event to have an effect. I can assure you that corticosteroid that I use does not improve performance, it enables me to take part in sport without having an asthma attack, but it also has side effects that affect my long term performance like suppression my immune system sufficiently that I get a high frequency of chest infections. It doesn't have performance enhancing ability.

I'd agree with Diggers that Farah is clean and yes the TUE's on their own are pretty much nothing, but then add in Salazar and the, known at the time, dodgy geezer at the African training camp and it could be a death by a thousand cuts. He really needs to be more aware of the impression that is being built up.

As for asthma treatments being banned, I'm not talking about enabling you to wheeze yourself around a track or playing field. More the fact that they do mitigate what is a pysiogical defect and therefore do enhance performance.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As much as I hate to say it, Wiggins' timings for TUE use is worrying - all prior to grand tours. The chap from The Times who played a big part in questioning/hounding Armstrong, David Walsh, I think, doesn't seem too happy about it. His major issues are the timings, the medication used, a particular team doctor employed at the time and the inconsistencies against Wiggins' autobiography. However, he does go on to say that he's spent plenty of time immersed in Team Sky and at no point has he even suspected foul play.

Farah's seems more easily explained, if still a bit worrying, but when put with the ongoing investigation in to Salazar......

As an aside, does anybody think that asthma treatments should be banned? After all, it is medication which improves performance. As someone who suffered with respiratory problems that sometimes impeded sporting activities I don't think it should, but, after all, it is a is a physiological weakness and the medication for it does improve performance. Why is the respiratory system treated differently to, as an example, muscles? Or, do I have it all wrong and are asthma induced issues deemed an injury and any medication is therefore treated the same as, say, a painkiller.

There is nothing remotely worrying about Farah's TUE's. I haven't looked at Wiggins' yet.

You can fuck right off with banning asthma treatments. Salbutamol only improves performance in very specific cases, and it needs to be taken immediately before (or during) the event to have an effect. I can assure you that corticosteroid that I use does not improve performance, it enables me to take part in sport without having an asthma attack, but it also has side effects that affect my long term performance like suppression my immune system sufficiently that I get a high frequency of chest infections. It doesn't have performance enhancing ability.

I'd agree with Diggers that Farah is clean and yes the TUE's on their own are pretty much nothing, but then add in Salazar and the, known at the time, dodgy geezer at the African training camp and it could be a death by a thousand cuts. He really needs to be more aware of the impression that is being built up.

As for asthma treatments being banned, I'm not talking about enabling you to wheeze yourself around a track or playing field. More the fact that they do mitigate what is a pysiogical defect and therefore do enhance performance.

I agree that it is a contentious area, but I disagree with your conclusion. Asthma is caused by an overactive immune response that causes the airway walls in the lung to swell and produce mucus. Corticosteroids act to suppress that immune response (hence the side effects that I mentioned before), they don't have an active performance enhance effect like other PEDs that shorten recovery time or dilate blood vessels. Salbutamol (and similar) do have a potential short-term performance enhancing effect as they act to dilate the airways, however, the effect is very short term. A sprinter or swimmer may get some benefit if it is taken immediately before a race, but the effect is not long lasting.

No, side effects from corticosteroids what a hoot, David millar disagrees massively there, have a look. nothing to see here

Mellsblue wrote:
I'd agree with Diggers that Farah is clean

Not sure that'd be agreeing with me. For a few years now my opinion of this area of sport is basically to assume everyone is doping, and that anyone passing clean is simply doing something the authorities don't yet know about to ban, or the athlete is turning a blind eye to coaching practicesand claiming they just doing as advised, or they're using such as the TUE. That's perhaps harsh on a great many athletes but I was done with protestations of innocence after Marion Jones (if not a little before) as that was a real heads up as to how well organised and financed the cheating was

I am slightly happier now there are blood passports, but we'll have to see how that works in practice and how many people are forced to hand back medals, prize money and endorsements. Mind if testing is as per the Russian standard of making sure nobody tests positive then lord only knows what you do.

paddy no 11 wrote:No, side effects from corticosteroids what a hoot, David millar disagrees massively there, have a look. nothing to see here

Who said there were no side effects from corticosteroids ?

Stones of granite wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:No, side effects from corticosteroids what a hoot, David millar disagrees massively there, have a look. nothing to see here

Who said there were no side effects from corticosteroids ?

It's certainly been linked to pain suppression allowing people to work at higher intensity, and when working for longer at lower intensity to still enable weight loss. Both very useful in cycling.

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:No, side effects from corticosteroids what a hoot, David millar disagrees massively there, have a look. nothing to see here

Who said there were no side effects from corticosteroids ?

It's certainly been linked to pain suppression allowing people to work at higher intensity, and when working for longer at lower intensity to still enable weight loss. Both very useful in cycling.

Got any references for that?

There's nothing even slightly remarkable about Farah's 2 TUEs.

I've been concerned for a long time about the numbers of athletes with asthma. A number of people on here have sought to reassure me about this but it still worries me.

I get the feeling next year's Tour is going to be rather hostile towards Sky...more so than recently.