Near enough everyone will develop asthma riding hard for hours, particularly in certain climates/conditions. It seems though you can get a TUE for these substances for pretty much any upcoming event regardless of whether asthma is likely to occur or hinder your performance.
So is Sir Wiggo a cheat then?
- Thread starter Ayahuasca
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Given how effective PEDs are, I suspect anyone at the cutting edge of sport is on something, else they wouldn’t be at the cutting edge. Depending on the substance involved, it’s also possible to do it without the athlete’s knowledge.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I know it's like - how does one with a condition that would 'rule out a sports career become top of their sport?
instructive - courtesy of reddit : the wiggins / farah / trott tues ... Wiggins has a life long allergy;
unfortunately the fancy bears do not reveal whether the TUE distribution is similar across all athlete nationalities, or who are the top rated cyclists with no TUE's
I think the UK media discussion is too Wiggins centric.
unfortunately the fancy bears do not reveal whether the TUE distribution is similar across all athlete nationalities, or who are the top rated cyclists with no TUE's
I think the UK media discussion is too Wiggins centric.
This.
That is really what the media blacklash is from which originally blew the whole thing out of proportion. The media, love a 'bad guy' and to ruin a 'hero'. It sells papers. Even if he isn't 'bad' to the letter of the law.
Agreed, I personally think this is the wakeup call that the UCI (etc) need to fix in no uncertain terms what substances are allowed, why and the amounts. There's lots of rules surrounding things commonly used day to day by athletes (and if they're allowed in competition or not) but there are equally large gaps on other less frequently used substances. Which could all have different affects on different athletes in different circumstances and situations. There's just so much unknown.
Same. Preventative. He'd suffered in similar situations before which had impacted his performance, so to avoid the possibility of it this time he preventatively took it.
Totally agree, Sky get targetted because of their 'whiter than white' stance and policy. I personally think they're probably one of the teams who is cleanest, but equally they are on the edge of that 'grey' area pushing the boundaries of the law/rules which this time caught them out. Other teams are not pushing those boundaries (don't have the athletes, time, doctors or funds) but equally are not benefiting from the 'marginal gains' to be found there.
Partially agree but when you throw in that cycling has by far the largest number of tests, with by far the most frequency then it should be easy to see why how many cyclists get 'caught'. Much of the testing obviously comes from it's very chequered past but I'd argue that today it is probably the cleanest pro sport there is.
Probably. You maybe missed your calling!
reboot - Mo Farah, do we want him representing us at the olympics, if it happens ?
(surprised he never had his own thread, but is he worth it, was either here, or the farah jeans, thread.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701
So Mo Farah puts whatever his doctor tells him into his body with no questions, moreover, just further skeletons(packages) in his cupboard.
Has he had the times to justify his place in the olympics, or, is it just the, defending champion card;
just seems like a money grab when his marathon career is not panning out, I'd rather see the places go to new, clean, talent; he should stand back if he had any scruples.
(surprised he never had his own thread, but is he worth it, was either here, or the farah jeans, thread.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51591701
So Mo Farah puts whatever his doctor tells him into his body with no questions, moreover, just further skeletons(packages) in his cupboard.
Has he had the times to justify his place in the olympics, or, is it just the, defending champion card;
just seems like a money grab when his marathon career is not panning out, I'd rather see the places go to new, clean, talent; he should stand back if he had any scruples.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,965
You called it! nearly 2 years ago
I don't believe that any top athletes are that clean. To the people who previously mentioned that we should just make pro sports a free-for-all, the reason that's a bad idea is because you get people dying from pumping themselves full of whatever the latest wonder drug is (e.g. EPO in the early 90s), and then the advantage is so great that it forces everyone to do it. It will never be 100% clean, but that doesn't mean we should just let them do anything, just like enforcing any rules.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
That's a bloody awful account.
These guys are meant to make a specific list of every single thing they take, at any time, for records.
He is an experienced athlete, it should be commonplace to know you took something, legal or not.
Frankly don't get why they allow the supplement in the first place at low levels, assume there are issues testing for it.
Damn... it was a bold claim and Maccy was absolutely right to ask for a source.... but fair enough - you did call it!
Do they actually keep records or is it just so they don't **** hot? It's like after the Fury / Wilder fight the other night. Someone hands Fury a bottle of water at the press conference and Fury takes it, looks at it and asks where it came from. Guy points to somewhere out of shot, Fury shakes his head and hands it back to him. Not taking the risk of consuming anything he doesn't know the source of in case he gets a surprise test and ****** hot.
The irony here is that, back in the classical day of Greek Olympians, professional sportsmen wouldn't have batted an eye at using narcotics/medicines/whatever to enhance their performance.
When (And why) did the attitude change to the idea of doing so being cheating and/or unacceptable?
When (And why) did the attitude change to the idea of doing so being cheating and/or unacceptable?
I think the technology moved on. There's a huge difference between using something to dull pain or perk you up (e.g. alcohol and coffee) and EPO, growth hormone and blood transfusions, let alone what the current latest is (I stopped paying attention after the Lance Armstrong era).
You could argue one way or another out of principle, but from a practical standpoint I don't think allowing the extremes of modern medicine into sport is a good idea. As I mentioned before, if we let athletes take whatever they wanted or felt they had to then a lot of them would end up dead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,461
- Location
- ST4
Simple solution to stop cheating, just get rid of the doping rules and let them pump whatever they want into their systems. I'd love to see somebody running 100m in 5s or doing 100mph on a bike.
Great, except for the point that I raised. Do you think that anyone who wants to be an athlete should have to pump their body full of god-knows-what?