David Walsh claims Team Sky's use of therapeutic use exemptions conflicts with its ethical stance

It is still Tuesday.

Remember not to criticise Froome or Michelle Cound will come and find you with a large stick.

LJM: I too suffer from a few medical conditions which tragically has curtailed my ability to earn a living as a professional cyclist. I think it's highly unfair that some athletes are favoured and allowed TUEs while other's (such as me) are not, simply based on which chronic condition they have.

Why should I be discriminated against, because my legs are unable to fully utilise the oxygen my lungs can deliver but I am now allowed to use the growth-promoting steroids which could fix this; while others who have the legs but apparently have lung problems are then allowed to use bronchio-dilatory steroids?

Goose, gander.

Where's my pro contract?

There seem to be many valid and not so valid points here... The over riding theme seems to be a need for utter transparency, from all involved.

But, in this particular instance (treatment of asthma) I find myself wondering about the legitimacy of treating that in an elite athlete. After all, racing is a test of physical prowess; should this not be seen holistically?

I for instance have a very good set of lungs (I have an annual medical that tells me this) but I don't have the musculature of an elite athlete. I am not allowed to use medication to overcome my weakness, so why should any other 'weakness' be treated differently?

'Nothing against Froome tho, I believe he's as cleaner rider as you'll find in the peleton'

This makes me lol. A lot.

Surprised at the negative reactions to Walsh's remarks. His point is valid, and he's done far more to clean up cycling than any of us can claim.

The remark from Sky, "said they could recall no such stance", with regards to in competition TUEs slightly contradicts their past comments. From page 72 of "Inside Team Sky" by David Walsh comes the following:

"Peters insists that Leinders was scrupulously ethical in his time with Sky. We agreed as a team that if a rider, suffering from asthma, got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a therapeutic use exemption on his behalf." - Team Sky's medical chief, Dr Steve Peters.

Yes, I know this quote refers to pollen, but using a TUE for a chest infection is arguably in principle the same. Using a TUE to allow an athlete to compete when they otherwise might not be able to.

It might be worth pointing out that Prednisolone, the steroid being used in the spray, is NOT an anabolic steroid of the kind which assists in building up muscle. In that sense, it is NOT "performance enhancing".

Of course, it does help him with his breathing as he has asthma, and in that sense may enhance his performance - it just is not one of the "anabolic agents" which we have seen in the past as performance enhancing drugs.

That may help the discussion.

Or not.

Oh dear, their (un)official mouth-piece is starting to see the wood from the trees!

I'd like to know when he found out Froome had asthma - was it when he was getting to know him when in bed (sorry imbedded) with Sky, or did he read it recently in a Sky PR release like the rest of us (after puffer-gate) and has swallowed that one without question too?

Sky are like a poor liar - it is said that to be a good liar you need a very good memory - Sky either can't remember the BS they trot out or they're so arrogant* they don't give a crap (*anyone remember their first season where they warmed up in secret, hidden behind a screen outside the team bus?)

So now that Walsh has written this, will the Sky hecklers please clarify something for me: Is Walsh in Sky's pocket or not? Because if he isn't, that suggests that everything else he has written about this team is, to the best of his knowledge, true. We can't have that, can we?

Regarding CF, I think Sky did have a policy of not issuing TUEs, but I think the thing Sky have been repeatedly guilty of is naivety, to the point of tying themselves in knots - hiring doctors from outside the sport, then finding that no-one knew enough about the physical stresses particular to cycling, then hiring Leinders, then realising he's been up to his neck in it previously... etc etc ad nauseum. As is the case now - can you imagine the conversation?

Doc: "We'll need to withdraw Froome from important build-up races, as we can't issue a perfectly legal TUE for a legal medication. Would you like to tell James Murdoch?"
Dave Brailsford: "Err..."

I'm not sure if it still is, but I seem to recall Vicks Sinex used to be on the banned list. That would I've doped on the club run to ease my sinuses! If I was due to race, you think I'd withdraw for that? Not likely, I'd be asking for permission to use it.

As I understand it, the whole concept of the introduction of TUEs was to comply with EU employment regulations. It would be discriminatory to prevent an individual plying his legitimate trade by denying him access to medication. That is why WADA allow TUEs. That is why a TUE was appropriate. It would be illegal for Sky to have an internal rule banning them in these circumstances.

The only thing I don't understand is why supposedly experienced and knowledgeable journalists can't grasp this. Unless, of course, they are simply trying to cause trouble for the sake of a cheap story, but they wouldn't do that, that would be unethical, wouldn't it.

Every time I see something like this, my first reaction is to look and see if the writer has a new book to hawk, and is building up his presence...and that may well be. The whole TUE system needs an overhaul, and as long as there are loopholes, teams will try to exploit them - even (especially?) Sky. But both fans and journalists need to understand the effects that certain exempted medications can have - not all steroidal compounds have a performance enhancing effect, so writing about them as if they're all the same is either ignorant or disingenuous, or both.

As long as a rider is on the course with an exemption, it should be so noted publicly, and the potential effects of that med ought to be listed. This goes for Tramadol as well - which apparently isn't on any banned list!

Agreed with comment 1 - I would also like to see Nibali win the tour, as I ve backed him!
Nothing against Froome tho, I believe he's as cleaner rider as you'll find in the peleton.

David Walsh is pointing at something potentially more sinister - the opacity of the TUE system and the potential for systematic abuse by athletes (not just cyclists). If he's right that Sky have consciously shifted from not using TUEs to using them, that's a significant event and needs more of an explanation than "we comply with the rules". It sounds to me that the TUE system needs not to operate in secret, so that people can have faith it isn't being used to get otherwise banned substances into althletes bodies during a competition.

Pro sport is about entertainment, something people forget. It is also a job and riders have bills to pay.

I doubt many teams don't sail close to the wind with the use of drugs and supplements. Only have to ask why the use of Tramadol? Not banned but is it really a good idea?

Drugs shouldn't be a part of pro sport, but they are and always will be.

Have to ask where are the stories about drugs and football though? Spain from number one to out in the first round in 4 years, where is the mention of Dr Fuentes... and his not being around this time? So are the Spanish clean this time? or others just more doped?

I have fallen out of love with Sky, they don't love the sport, they are number crunchers and in my view hypocrites.

However I hate these types of stories even more than Sky, from what I can see Sky did everything correctly, if the UCI didn't follow their own rules why is that Sky's fault ? are they supposed to test the UCI had followed the rules before they accepted the TUE ? nope.

Stop having a go at Sky, they are not the ones who broke the rules.

"remedy the situation" - oh the lol.

Here we go, lead up to the tour and a 'drug' story surfaces about Sky.....all rather zzzz except its not a french journalist for a change.

If he had had back to back continous TUE's then fair enough. It was Tour of Romandy was too critical to Sky's prep for the tour, that is why I think they did it (it being within the rules). If every rider has a common TUE then clearly its an issue but this individual instance is not a story.

And no I'm not one of the Skytifosi, I want Nibali to win the tour