Drug used by Bradley Wiggins should be banned – David Millar

Jimnm wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

If you have something wrong with you you shouldn't be allowed to race.

You clearly shouldn't be allowed to race.

 

I will rephrase my post 

if you have something wrong with you which requires drugs you shouldn't be allowed to race. Nil drugs 

I won't be racing anytime soon

Yea, I got that the first time.  Do you realize how common things like allergies and asthma are?  Let alone other types of health conditions that are managable with medication.  People with health problems aren't a subspecies of lesser people.  

Whether this particular case was an abuse or not, that's certianly an issue.  But you can't prohibit such a large portion of the public from being able to compete for reasons they have no control over.  That's pretty much the definition of discrimination.

velo-nh wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

If you have something wrong with you you shouldn't be allowed to race.

You clearly shouldn't be allowed to race.

 

I will rephrase my post 

if you have something wrong with you which requires drugs you shouldn't be allowed to race. Nil drugs 

I won't be racing anytime soon

Yea, I got that the first time.  Do you realize how common things like allergies and asthma are?  Let alone other types of health conditions that are managable with medication.  People with health problems aren't a subspecies of lesser people.  

Whether this particular case was an abuse or not, that's certianly an issue.  But you can't prohibit such a large portion of the public from being able to compete for reasons they have no control over.  That's pretty much the definition of descrimination.

pretty much!  Perhaps they could have different categories of entry, drugged and drug free, obviously not competing together as that wouldn't be fair, now would it.

At least it would give the competitor a choice of which side of the fence he/she is on. Making sport more transparent. No grey areas and possibly end the deceit of cheating. 

Jimnm wrote:

pretty much!  Perhaps they could have different categories of entry, drugged and drug free, obviously not competing together as that wouldn't be fair, now would it.

At least it would give the competitor a choice of which side of the fence he/she is on. Making sport more transparent. No grey areas and possibly end the deceit of cheating. 

I don't think you understand fair versus not-fair.  Say I have a skin condition that's treated with a steroid that has a very slight performance benefit for a small percentage of people that use it.  You'd have me choose between risking skin infection or worse versus racing with Lance Armstrong?  No, that's not even remotely fair.

velo-nh wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

velo-nh wrote:

Jimnm wrote:

If you have something wrong with you you shouldn't be allowed to race.

You clearly shouldn't be allowed to race.

 

I will rephrase my post 

if you have something wrong with you which requires drugs you shouldn't be allowed to race. Nil drugs 

I won't be racing anytime soon

Yea, I got that the first time.  Do you realize how common things like allergies and asthma are?  Let alone other types of health conditions that are managable with medication.  People with health problems aren't a subspecies of lesser people.  

Whether this particular case was an abuse or not, that's certianly an issue.  But you can't prohibit such a large portion of the public from being able to compete for reasons they have no control over.  That's pretty much the definition of discrimination.

'elite sport' is the definition of discrimination.

The issues here are playing the TUE system and the brutality of grand tours, not the fact that not very many people are born like Usain Bolt.

HoldTheWheel wrote:

I'm a big fan of Wiggo but even I have to admit it looks fishy - not so much the drug used but the timing of each of the three TUEs. Before the big GC crack at the tour in 2011, before the the next big attempt at the tour in 2012 and finally before going for the giro the following year. Hate to say it, but I think he played the system. The obvious solution is to have a no-racing period after a TUE, depending on the effects of the drug.

It is more than fishy and precisely because of the timing and the drug used. But TUE means that he's broken no rule that any other athlete has been subjected to.

The Russians are right to point out the hypocrisy. You don't even have to look at TUEs to say that. What happened with Lizzie Armitstead was pure hypocrisy. Her case was seen to very speedily and was able to compete, despite breaking the rules. Other Russian athletes were given summary judgements based on third party evidence and banned from competing.

I don't dispute that the probability is that the Russian athletes were part of an organised doping program, but unlike Lizzie, they passed all the tests and didn't break any rules based on their requirement to produce samples. Lizzie was allowed off on a technicality with more than a hint that she consciously avoided tests.

The system is broke.

Must be Mad wrote:

I have time for Millar on this subject - he is someone who know exactly where the bones are buried.

However, on this point:

Quote:

If you are non-asthmatic and you take Ventolin it’s not going to give you any advantage.

You take a strong enouph dosage, and there certinally is a performance advantage from Ventolin. It only lasts 5 min or so, but during that time - whaaayyyyy.

(although of course, some who needs that strenght of medication, aint going to be racing pro at the same time)

There's a limit to how much you can dilate a bronchus. If you don't have asthma, your bronchi shouldn't be constricted. Salbutamol will also give you a raging tachycardia for a relatively short time if you take a lot of it. That can be quite uncomfortable.

Ungulate wrote:

As a medic I would never use triamcinolone for "asthma", as Millar says (and he does know this sh*t) there are many other steroids that could be used for asthma, and certainly there's no reason to use injectable steroids either. 

And this is the point that none of the media want to discuss from the fancy bears hack. One of the criteria for a TUE is that there should be no legitimate alternative treatment available, but there are 12 non-banned asthma inhaler treatments.

There is no reason that a TUE should be granted for salbutamol or triamcinolone unless the athlete has an adverse reaction to all 12 of those, and since they work by several different means that is almost impossible. That so many athletes are taking one or other of these is clear abuse of the system. 

kevinmorice wrote:

Ungulate wrote:

As a medic I would never use triamcinolone for "asthma", as Millar says (and he does know this sh*t) there are many other steroids that could be used for asthma, and certainly there's no reason to use injectable steroids either. 

 

And this is the point that none of the media want to discuss from the fancy bears hack. One of the criteria for a TUE is that there should be no legitimate alternative treatment available, but there are 12 non-banned asthma inhaler treatments.

 

There is no reason that a TUE should be granted for salbutamol or triamcinolone unless the athlete has an adverse reaction to all 12 of those, and since they work by several different means that is almost impossible. That so many athletes are taking one or other of these is clear abuse of the system. 

TUEs have only been required for salbutamol when exceeding doses way in excess of normal usage since about 2010,and if you were taking I think its approx 16 inhaler doses a day to control your asthma, you wouldnt be getting on abike and riding in a race anyway, youd be in hospital. at which point the doctors would be saying well why are you using a reliever medicine as a preventer medicine, and then prescribe you something completely different. You go for the salbutamol inhaler only when its needed, its not a magic performance boost drug,in normal consumption, no matter how many times people keep smearing that it is.

unconstituted wrote:

Millar is exactly who should have a voice. He knows his shit. And wasn't some washed up nearly ran, the guy was a boss. Good times, bad times. He's seen pretty much all of it. 

I remember Millar being interviewed a few years ago and talking about how it was a clean new world and the young guys in his team didn't face the pressures to dope that he did. You didn't have to be following cycling news very closely at the time to realise that was he was either hopelessly naive, dishonest, or just sticking his head in the sand. It certainly didn't come across as "knowing your shit".

It's interesting that Millar regards this drug as the most potent thing he's ever used, because the Telegraph reported this yesterday:

Quote:

Dr Brian Lipworth, of the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, said, however, that he believed there was “no scientific reason” why a drug like triamcinolone would be performance-enhancing.

“An anabolic steroid like testosterone puts on muscle mass but this is a catabolic steroid which breaks down muscle,” said  Lipworth, who sits on the WHO guidelines committee ARIA. “The benefits to David Millar were probably the fact that he was taking EPO and testosterone at the same time as he was using triamcinolone. So the anaobolic effect of the testosterone probably counteracted the triamcinolone."

Ian Pavord, a Professor of Respiratory Medicine at the University of Oxford, said he too doubted injected triamcinolone could help athletic performance as it would “reduce proximal muscle mass”.

Stephen Durham, the Head of Section for Allergy and Clinical Immunology at NHLI, Imperial College and Professor of Allergy and Respiratory Medicine at Royal Brompton Hospital London, said that to the best of his knowledge it would not aid performance but that "it would require a biochemist/clinical pharmacologist to provide a definitive answer that it would not have minimal effects".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-...

I'd like to know why Wiggins was using this treatment if it was for performance enhancement, and not just a very heavy duty allergy treatment, because it doesn't sound very useful. Either way, I'm not sure I would rely on Millar's comments about its performance enhancing effects instead of the opinion of expert scientists!