October 22, 2014 Login  


UCI TUE Fast-track
Last Post 06/25/2014 08:55 AM by stronzo nonfumare. 15 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
jmdirt

Posts:707

--
06/15/2014 10:34 AM
-Cookson should have gotten rid of Dr. Z .
-Hopefully Dr. Z acted on his own with Froome's TUE.
--strike 10 you're out.
-I hope that Cookson had no knowledge of the fast-track.

Any large organization has people who don't follow policy, and this doc is dirty so this isn't a shock. How this is handled will tell a lot about the state of the UCI.
79pmooney

Posts:1156

--
06/15/2014 02:35 PM
I have liked what I have seen of Cookson so far so I hope you are right. I'm watching to see what hapens next.

Ben
jmdirt

Posts:707

--
06/15/2014 05:16 PM

“Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure.”

"The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process.”

“The UCI wishes to emphasise that under the applicable rules – which are consistent with the WADA Code and the WADA TUE Standard and Guidelines – any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE.”
longslowdistance

Posts:695

--
06/15/2014 07:35 PM
So what's the scandal?
stronz

Posts:307

--
06/15/2014 09:51 PM
Here's the scandal -- Any sporting organizatin that allows a competitor to compete while taking 40 mg of prednisone orally is eff'd up. Thats a serious dose and if Froome needed that to be competitive he wasnt fit to race. It is irresponsible on the part of his doctors and unfair to his competition. Other than that it was perfectly reasonable. This little bit of news has convinced me that pro-cycling is completely dirty. Again.
jmdirt

Posts:707

--
06/15/2014 11:38 PM
lsd, The scandal base on the first story was that The UCI (or someone in the UCI) didn't follow procedure. Based on follow up info, it appears that everything was done according to regulations. I was guilty of jumping to conclusions before getting more info, but I wasn't blaming Froome/Sky, I was blaming Dr. Z.

Stronz, who knows what's going on in the platoon, but if pred is the worst of it, cycling is cleaner than any pro sport (including collegiate). I agree that if a rider needs something for a "serious infection", they should take a break from racing until the infection is gone.
longslowdistance

Posts:695

--
06/16/2014 10:40 AM
Stronz, I get your points.
Just curious: are you certain about the specific drug and the dose? FWIW, a single 40mg dose of prednisone (slow release form most likely but I don't know what he took) is not a ton of drug. Usually an acute asthma flareup gets at least a few days of treatment.
stronz

Posts:307

--
06/16/2014 11:05 AM
"...Ahead of the Tour de Romandie, Le Journal du Dimanche reports, Sky team doctor Alan Farrell requested a TUE that would allow Froome to take 40mg per day of the oral corticosteroid prednisolone throughout the race. This request was reportedly granted and Froome proceeded to win the Tour de Romandie for the second successive year..."

full article

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

One oral dose 40mg prednisone is one thing. but a week's worth is a serious regimen. Yeah it addresses his breathing issue but it also helps overall recovery, reduces muscle inflammation and generally makes you feel like superman. As someone who prescribes this medicine I can tell you it is not a baby dose. Yes you can go much higher, but 40mg Qday for a week is gonna have an effect on everything. As I wrote above if he needed that much pred to compete he was probably unfit to race. And then of course he was also given a very unfair advantage for recovery and performance during the week race.
Orange Crush

Posts:1204

--
06/16/2014 12:32 PM
Interesting Stronz. It all seems legal and it sounds proper process may in fact have been followed but daily use does raise some serious "should this be allowed" questions.
79pmooney

Posts:1156

--
06/16/2014 01:19 PM
I am starting to wonder about UCI. They say normal procedures were followed. Sounds like they were at the Sky end. But isn't UCI supposed to convene a panel of three doctors to approve such requests? This appears to not have been done and from what Stonz says, probably should have been.

Further, what UCI is saying nos sounds AWFULLY familiar. Like a decade of familiar. And this rider being a standing TdF winner. Deja vu.

I hope Cookson speaks up about this (or quietly goes around and makes if VERY cleary that this was not OK).

Ben
SideBySide

Posts:179

--
06/16/2014 02:15 PM
Could this "temporary" condition have influenced what happened at the CdD?

Note:  I have not watched the final stage yet, so don't know how he looked. 
stronz

Posts:307

--
06/23/2014 12:50 PM
resurrecting this cause there's some interesting speculation over at CN regarding the "real" reason that SKY asked for the in-competition TUE for Froome: So here it is -- the prednisone was needed to mask what was going on in Froome's blood -- specifically Sky knew he was going to produce an echo-positive from a transfusion he took during or right before Roumandie so they ordered up a TUE for prednisone and it masked what was there or simply explained what was there.

Or he really needed it cause he was so ill and O yeah he won the race.
79pmooney

Posts:1156

--
06/24/2014 12:17 PM
It didn't take Mr. Cookson long to announce that a committee of three experts will review future cases and that new rules will be in effect next January, drafted in communication with WADA.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/all-tue-requests-will-now-pass-through-a-committee-says-uci

Granted, I read this report of a matter concerning a British team off an English website about an English head of UCI. Still, I think that this Cookson guy is pretty level headed and fair and seems to have the knack of rather simply just doing the next right thing. What a concept!

Ben
stronz

Posts:307

--
06/24/2014 03:07 PM
the part that is interestng to me is that he didnt make it effective immediately. Why not? To give the teams time to "adjus"t their strategies perhaps?
jmdirt

Posts:707

--
06/24/2014 04:13 PM
I think the TUE policy is effective now: “As an immediate measure, the UCI confirms that from now on, all TUE decisions will pass through the TUE committee.” The entire new rules package will roll out in January to line up with WADA's new code. That makes sense and is pretty standard for new rules to take affect Jan. 1 (or at the start of a new season in some cases), plus they need time to develop the new code before they can roll it out.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>


Active Forums 4.1

Latest Forum Posts
cyclist door incidents article posted in Road Cycling

PING: Dale, 6ix and thinline posted in Road Cycling

Microshift posted in Gear Advice

Tour de France 2015 Winner Unveiled!! posted in Professional Racing

"La Petite Reine" posted in The Dark Side

Rear wheel dish ? posted in Gear Advice


No articles match criteria.
  Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy  Copyright 2008-2013 by VeloNation LLC