A Needleless Policy
by fmk on Mar 16, 2011 11:26 AM EDT
Email
Print
The UCI is apparently giving serious consideration to the banning of all needles in cycling, which would effectively ban even shots of vitamin B12. They are also said to be considering standing down any rider who needs to inject corticosteroids - which, though illegal, are allowed under a Therapeutic Use Exemption - for forty-eight hours.
Such a rule change, the reports state, could be in place before the start of the Giro d'Italia in May. Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion as to which change is being referred to here: the no needles policy or the two-day's gardening leave for anyone legally shooting-up with corticosteroids.
So far, I've only seen two comments from Pat McQuaid on this. The first suggests that the UCI's primary objective here is optics: "We remember the syringes found in hotel rooms, and you know how much that contributes to tarnish the image of the sport." Nowhere have I seen McQuaid expand on how a no needles policy would be implemented.
The only other quote from him I've seen so far relates to the forty-eight stand-down: "It is necessary to introduce a new rule. An athlete who receives an injection of corticosteroids will be rested for forty-eight hours "
On this issue - the legal use of corticosteroids - the CPLD kicked up a fuss in 2000 when they revealed that twenty-eight of the samples tested at the Tour de France that year popped positives for corticosteroids but were excused by the use of TUEs. By 2003 that had risen to more than forty. At the 2008 Tour the AFLD gave a figure of six riders testing positive for corticosteroids but being excused by the use of TUEs. It is unlikely that all of those corticosteroids would have been taken by injection.
Garmin-Cervélo team doctor Prentice Steffen, who spoke at the pre Paris-Nice meeting at which these rules changes were discussed, explained the matter more to Cycling News: "I talked more about the ethics, logistics, evolution and implementation of our policy [Garmin have had a no needles policy since last year]. Pat McQuaid spoke first and said that they'd been talking about this at a UCI level. But Pat talked about the image problem that we have in cycling and how there's several ways that it manifests itself, and the association with needles is one of them."
The Garmin-Cervélo needle ban - which was originally trialed by Jonathan Vaughters' riders at the 2008 Tour de France and brought in season-long last year - makes no distinction between legal and illegal use of needles.
WADA moved on sport's association with needles several year ago. Since 2005 they have treated intravenous drips of all kinds - whether they be for (legal) glucose drips or (illegal) blood transfusions - as being a banned method. Only intravenous injections by syringes of less than 50mL are permitted under the WADA code. Obviously, you can still get a Therapeutic Use Exemption, where an IV is considered essential.
Others have taken an even firmer hand on the issue of the medicalisation of cycling. At the juniors' Giro d'Italia, the Girobio, the organisers have a strict no medications policy. No drugs of any kind may be carried by the teams. If you want to take even a headache tablet, you need to see the race doctor.
Cycling has - and has long had - a culture of the syringe. Policies like those in place at the Girobio and at Garmin-Cervélo can only help this sport overcome its dependency on needles and pills. Available evidence suggests that both Garmin and the Girobio organisers are policing these policies, and they are not just window-dressing.
The UCI considering the adoption of a no needles policy (even if it is driven mostly by optics) ought be applauded - if it is policed properly. Ditto the forty-eight hour stand-down for injections of corticosteroids. Who knows, such policies might one day help the sport address an absurd irony: in order to dissuade people from doping, it is today necessary to reinforce the culture of the syringe by subjecting riders to blood tests.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting
Have any thoughts been given to team type 1? I assume that diabetes injections would need to be exempted?
I asked Vaughters on twitter when Garmin's no-needles policy was announced
and he was all “of COURSE diabetics will be excepted” which made me feel much better.
I also asked about medical treatment (eg recovery from dehydration etc) but he didn’t reply to that one
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
does he know you? can he trust you? do you like side-burns? :)
ok, seriously, i would like if someone here could talk to someone there, as i think between a few of us we have some gd Qs. personally, the idealist in me likes the idea of a no needles policy. i do accept all the reservations you have about it. which is why it’d be gd if someone with direct experience of such a policy could talk to someone here.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Heh, it's not a diss, I think it's amazing that he answers randome people's random Qs on twitter!
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
am making fun of some of his recent comments about anon internet peeps. i do actually like the man and admire what he’s trying to do
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
On the diabetics score, as I mis-posted below, I hope to be talking to TT1’s Phil Southerland soon – he has a book out – and this is something I’ll be asking him about then.
BTY, does the Garvelo no needles policy extend to the women’s team?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
No idea re the women, I'd assume so?
Inner Ring had the Garvélo no needles policy on his site somewhere – but for some reason the blog isn’t opening for me… I think he posted about no needles last year as well – I can see it on google but it’s not opening right now
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
This might be what he wrote about Garvélo’s no needles? Won’t open, but looks like it from google!
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Opens for me. Prob blocking you deliberately :)
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Haha, no doubt!
Was I right? Less More importantly, was it helpful?
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Riders With Diabetes (type 1 or otherwise)
Has any rider with type 1 diabetes gotten a legitimate result in a UCI race? These guys are simply surviving.
by Chief Commissaire on Mar 17, 2011 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Team Type 1 are a team based around proving riders with diabetes can compete on the USA domestic level
(which is why I know I use diabetes as one of my examples)
(dunno about their results, as I don’t know much about USA teams, or conti teams from anywhere)
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 17, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Old Southerland interview in the archives, a new one (fingers crossed) on the way. TT1 podium stats.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Tch! Such cynicism. Where do youse get it from?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Hee!
I’m still reading the headline that way. As I’m sure you intended. Nefarious, these anonymous internet people ;)
As I’m sure you intended.
How dare you cast asparagus like that at me! I’m going to go and sulk now.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
don't submit to urine analysis after ingesting that asparagus
maybe it’s safer to cast nasturtiums
cast nasturtiums? what is this, a film? who’s directing, woody allen?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
if it’s a film, Woody Allen’s lost his touch.
But, aw hell, you knew that anyway.
First up, I’m not sure how seriously the no needles policy is being considered. I think there may have been a bit of mis-reporting on it. Yes, the UCI may be considering it, but I think the only thing we’ll see this year will be the 48-hr stand-down for corticosteroids.
Whatever the policy, I’m pretty sure that, as with the WADA ban on IVs, there would be a TUE loophole. There has to be a TUE loophole.
On the issue of TT1, I’ll be talking to them in the next few weeks hopefully and this is a question I’ll be posing.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
I was talking to someone about this, and apparently in Belgium
it’s de rigeur to take some kinds of vitamins by injections – not just B12, which was the first thing I thought of. I know different European countries have different approaches to what’s injected (just as there seems to be much more injecting in the bum in the USA than in the UK, at least if medical dramas are to be believed…. yeah, I know, tv’s not real life…) so for this to be implemented, there’s have to be research into what would be on the medical exemption list, and it could end up different for different countries.
I’ve got to say, I’m dubious about a “no needles under any but hospital circumstances” because I have friends who need to inject things for medical reasons (B12, for instance) and if it’s medically less efficient to take things by mouth, then that is insane. I guess the problem is if any medical exemptions are allowed, someone will get fake ones (like the asthma meds etc)
Re
No drugs of any kind may be carried by the teams. If you want to take even a headache tablet, you need to see the race doctor.what happens about people with eg thyroid conditions? I use that as an eg because I have to take drugs every day, and Katie Compton says she has a dodgy thyroid, which was why she had all the cramping in the 2009/10 ‘cross season. I take my drugs at set times, and have to take them half an hour before breakfast, so straight away on waking up – there’s no way I’ve be happy with giving them to someone else and having to trust they would be findable when I needed them, esp if there were a number of athletes at the same race who took daily drugs…
There are loads and loads of conditions that are long-term-but-controlled-by-drugs that an athlete can have and still be a pro (sadly, not my thyroid one ;-)) – and what about vitamins and iron etc? I am absolutely up for making cycling cleaner, but these blanket policies feel like they could be a bit throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater for anyone who’s not got a 100% normal physiognomy…
Forgot to add
which is why I can’t see even the UCI actually implementing them!
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The other thing re "no needles" is what about blood tests?
both bio-passport tests and tests to see why a rider is feeling ill (thinking of iron deficiency, which is pretty common, for example). There would have to be so damn many exemption clauses that dodgy teams would find it very easy to find plausible reasons for why a dodgy rider would have needle marks…
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 16, 2011 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Would be nice to get Garmin’s take on how it works.
As I said above, I’m not sure how seriously the UCI are treating the no needles suggestion. Some of it I think is purely optics.
I can see the 48-hr stand-down come in, but the full ban on needles would be much more serious.
Prob is, I can’t find the original l’Equipe pice that started this and I think Prentice Steffan’s comments have helped confuse the matter.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Can't believe I'm the first person to volunteer for
the “suspicious puncture marks in normally invisible locations” detection squad.
More seriously, the race doctor idea, if correctly implemented, doesn’t keep anyone from getting their meds. If a rider has a standing or frequent need for something, and a TUE for it, they set things up, in advance, with the race org and the race doc.
If their health goes suddenly wonky, and they need something unexpectedly, they’re no more and no less shafted than they are now.
As for the needles, again, if it goes through the race doc (or docs), there’s the assurance that the only thing in the syringe is [insulin/thyroid meds / whatever the TUE is for], not a cocktail. Problem, of course, is that once there’s a single documented and approved puncture, anyone can re-inject at that same site.
I actually sort of wonder if some of the infamous saddle sores had their etiology in carelessly done / dirty / repeated injections.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Can’t believe I’m the first person to volunteer for the "suspicious puncture marks in normally invisible locations" detection squad.
But would a no needles policy ban acupuncture? Didn’t Riis role out his acupuncturist one year?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
I don't think the 'no needles' policy is about catching puncture marks
I think it’s about being able to search for equipment/drugs and then take action (like at the girobiro) without having to prove use of the equipment/drugs. Effectively it becomes a regulatory or pre-cursor type offence. Much easier to use and sanction. Effectively, a team has ipso facto no reasonable excuse for the possession of the equipment and a sanction like deregistration can be applied without fear of difficult and expensive legalities.
Another useful rule would be making medical waste accountable
All teams should have to label their medical waste in a bag and then dump it in a UCI central repository. This would incidentally allow the UCI to survey what was being used and in what sort of quantities. That might allow them to better target their healthy riding education message.
The point of all these kinds of rules is not that they entice people to be honest. What they do is make it very much harder to be dishonest and very, very much harder to come up with a plausible excuse when caught. It also sheets home blame where most of it probably belongs- to the team rather than the individual rider.
If we had these two rules – no needles and all medical waste centrally collected – then how would that have panned out for USPS when the journalists managed to film dumping and then examine the medical waste? It would have led to the entire team being immediately sanctioned- at least dismissed from the race and probably de-registered, rather than a fury of well-founded suspicion but without the evidence to prove the use by a particular rider which is necessary under the current system.
Doubt if it would hit the whole team. You just blame a dickhead soigneur, say he acted without orders, and fire the bugger to show how upset you are. Then you get some friend to give him another gig.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
If you put the onus on the doctor to be personally responsible
for the waste, there is no way out. Doctors have to be licensed. At the very least you can refuse to have them accredited to work with a team but this kind of thing could also cause them professional registration problems.
Its a regulatory approach but you do what works – its a bit like using tax law to jail the mafia.
I guess the problem is that not all doctors are ethical
(Mind you, why anyone though a gynaecologist was a legit doctor for male pro cyclists is beyond me!)
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 18, 2011 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
because compared to Jens!, they're all....
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Med waste is already bagged and tagged. Is just that sometimes some teams don’t want to bag and tag.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Bagged and tagged but disposed of where?
I am suggesting they have to hand it in. It would be best if that system was combined with the team doctor having to provide a manifest of all drugs and then an accountable list of everything used and to whom it was given. Then discrepancies are traceable and sheeted home to the doctor as well as the rider. so doctor doesn’t just get a bad rep, he gets a ban.
I think it is already meant to be handed in.
The manifest thing is a French legal thing, nothing to do with cycling. And it only covers meds that need to be imported, and which need permission to be imported.
On the accounting side – have you any idea how much EPO (and all other meds) goes missing from hospitals?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
I read a really scary report a few weeks back
(can’t remember where, sorry) talking about Harry Lime style dilution of doses in the pharmacy, swapping it out for water and other tricks like that too.
Agree that this would be a rule more about being able to do you for having equipment. Even then, I’m not sure we’d see many persecutions under it. For the UCI, if they buy it, it’ll be for what it looks like – tough on doping, tough on the causes of doping. For me, it’d be about helping to create a better environment for pros who want to ride clean.
The IV ban has been in six season now – anyone know of a single offence under it?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
I'm happy they're trying, but I have some concerns
TUEs exist in part because there is a need to protect the athlete’s right to receive relevant medication when required without affecting their right to work. Ability to work is different – if you were a truck driver and needed medication that makes you drowsy, then you should not work as there is a high likelihood you will temporarily not be suitably able to safely fulfil your duties. But a cyclist using a corticosteroid for rhinitis for example, or an infected scab on their knee, is perfectly able to safely work. Therefore their right to work would be unfairly inhibited should there be a temporary ban applied to them riding.
Corticosteroids can be taken via injection, however it is more common generally for them to be an oral application or external application (such as a cream/ointment). This doesn’t really tie in to the no-needles policy. Garvélo for example have their no-needle policy, but all 9 TdF riders could have TUEs for corticosteroids.
What if a team got an infection or illness as a whole – like Team Sky in the Vuelta last year. You either let them take the appropriate medication, and the whole team drops out of the race, or you force riders to risk their health.
With reference to the no-needles policy, this is a good idea in principle. However as Pigeons has mentioned, there are many medications which are much more efficient if given via injection. A few basically have to be via injection. Diabetes is a good example, but there are many others. If you had a serious health issue, perhaps something that is potentially life-threatening, would you be happy taking a lesser medication to avoid using a needle?
How would this policy affect the employment opportunities of riders who do occasionally or potentially require medication provided via injection?
At least the needle policy has sense behind it – if caveats were added for people who have a proven medical history of potentially requiring emergency medical assistance via needle. The dehydration issue would be one I think they ought to consider though. How dehydrated do you need to be for it to be an emergency? Life-threatening? Or just a lot more than usual, where it would take many hours to recover via oral fluids?
The TUE one though is an issue for me. BMC gave journalists access to their team doctor during the Tour last year. I think it was Brent Bookwalter who had infected saddle sores, and suffering pains from a crash. He was in absolute agony just getting out of bed, then had to ride 6 hours every day in the searing heat then rain/fog, just barely staying in the wagon. You’re not happy at him getting the necessary corticosteroid and accompanying TUE to help save his rear? UCI would rather see someone suffer more in pain? Not someone in contention for the overall, just someone trying to beat the time limit each day and make it to Paris. He’s no help to anyone, just trying to complete the Tour, he’s got a serious infection which will only get worse. And he can’t take the medication without being thrown out of the race?
What I’d rather they did is make the race doctor be the sole person who can provide the TUEs. These shouldn’t be common, but should be available where needed. If it’s the night before MSR and someone needs to take something to avoid being ill, and they want to get a TUE, that’s the race doctor’s decision. Not his team’s, who then go out to find a doctor to provide a TUE. Likewise during a tour, go see the race doctor(s) if you’re ill and your team thinks you could do with some corticosteroids.
The race doctor(s) can then use their own judgement – if a GC contendor has a really weak reason for wanting a TUE, you can decline the request. If it’s a tailender struggling along with an infection, give him the medication he needs.
I hate the cheaters as much as the next guy, but treating the whole peloton worse than animals doesn’t seem to me to be the most effective solution.
overgeneralization, but...
corticosteroids lower the immune response, and increase the risk of infection / spreading of an infection. Reducing the inflammation (which the corticosteroid does) will make the rider more comfortable and able to ride. It may prevent secondary damage (which can be a real issue). But it can also open up the athlete for greater risks of both acute and long term infection. The more I think about it, the team DS and doctor are actually the last people I’d want to have in control, over that situation.
In addition, repeated injection of corticosteroids can trigger serous tissue breakdown. There is a distinct conflict, therefore, between the immediate goals of the DS (and the rider’s immediate wishes) and the long term health of the rider.
I know that dropping out is not a favorite option for a rider or a team. But historically, only a small percentage of riders finished the early tours. Having riders drop out when their bodies start to give out is not actually the worst option for the good of the rider, or the race.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I play a sport right now, and I have had issues with my nose. Nothing that affected me playing, more sleeping in fact.
I was given corticosteroids and an inhaler-type thing which I think includes a steroid-type substance but has other active subtances also (I have to be honest, I have no idea what’s in it – but if I fail a test I’m blaming beef). I needed to take the first lot for 3 months, then the inhaler thing is forever.
If I was a pro cyclist, that’s 3 months and 2 days off the bike, then I make a choice – inhaler and sleep properly, or be a cyclist and not sleep properly.
To have a blanket restriction on TUEs is ridiculous. And I believe probably legally unenforceable if someone appealed it.
Indeed riders did give up the grand tours more often years ago. But we have better everything these days, and they’re arguably not as arduous races or conditions, so there should be big improvements on that. And I don’t believe the riders would take the right choice anyway – I think many would suffer on if it was the Tour.
the question isn't whether the nose thing affects playing (riding etc)...
It’s whether the meds do. If the doses of meds you are using don’t boost performance in your sport, great. If they do, then as a pro, you’d have the choice of trying another solution (e.g. surgery, CPAP, whatever) or leaving the sport.
The tours are less arduous, but so it daily life. I’m not sure many of us would measure up to daily life of a couple of hundred years ago. I agree that many riders will drive themselves into the ground without medical aid. But they will also drive themselves into the ground with medical aid, and in fact, they may do themselves more long term damage that way. We’ve evolved a semi-effective set of damage limitation mechanisms, from pain to weakness to exhaustion. Circumventing them is not always smart.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
Interesting highlight of this conv is how it shows that cycling’s problem is society’s problem – are we over medicalised or not?
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
To have a blanket restriction on TUEs is ridiculous.
Did I mention the TUE stats in this piece or the other one? I forget. (Says something when even I don’t read my own styuff!) Whichever. Pay attention to the drop off in numbers. Before the Cofidis affaire, getting a TUE was a piece of piss. After what’s his face – the French guy St David said was off his trolley – blew the gaff and WADA realised the problem, the rules were tightened. I personally don’t like TUEs, they’re leaglised doping by the back door, but I’m not calling for them to be done away with. Just strictly controlled.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
corticosteroids lower the immune response, and increase the risk of infection / spreading of an infection.
Is funny, when I first finally paid attention to that effect of corticoids, I started noticing stories of riders with injuries that just wouldn’t heal, as that’s another effect they have.
On the long-term damage side, again, see Cyrille Guimard. I think it was Novocaine he shot up with.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
hard to pinpoint,
in that (at least circumstantially) exhaustion / depletion of the body / near starvation (which is pretty close to what riders live at, esp. in a grand tour, despite their calorie intake) also depress the immune system. So, no unambiguous aspersions can be cast, basically.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
One that stuck out in my mind was Fignon, 88 I think. Crashed in the tunnel in the Giro, leg wound still hadn’t healed by the Tour.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
My mother did that for a broken ankle, in her youth,
so as not to lose a few days skiing. So I’m not discounting the riders themselves having a natural “do whatever it takes” mentality. Or a teenager-like sense of invulnerability. All the same, if we can keep enough pressure on to take things down a few notches, instead of ratcheting ever upwards, that’s a worthwhile goal.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
And yes, I'm agreeing with your "race doctor" idea
but also suggesting they should pick someone who’s not over-eager to dispense for the sake of keeping riders riding, as opposed to keeping riders healthy.
"dumped for Greipel?!"
I like that idea too, sorta
I’d prefer a physician semi-independent of both teams AND the race, though.
I guess the trouble is that race doctors will vary wildly
and then we get into the whole nationalities thing (eg an American doctor keeping a high profile rider out of the Tour of Cali – and as mentioned below, the conflict of interests thing. If it’s, eg the Tour of Cali, and eg Lance Armstrong is the biggest draw…. (I use the USA, because of the LA effect, but the same thing goes for the Vuelta and the Giro…) Ultimately, allowing/denying riders will affect the success of the race… which pays your wage. A big team’s DS could say "if you don’t allow rider X to ride this year, we’ll boycott you next year).
Plus if it’s a SSR, struggling for finances etc (or a women’s race run entirely on volunteers…. actually, there weren’t enough doctors to even administer drugs tests at some of the World Cups last year, according to Marianne Vos) would they have the extra £ to have extra doctoring?
So my solution = have TUEs agreed by a central point. That also gets round the international differences thing, where a race in one country might be fine with a rider taking X, but in another country, it’s banned…
by Sarah Connolly on Mar 17, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
good points . . .
I suppose that I’d like to see WADA, etc. transform its mission from being simply anti-doping to encouraging healthy sport.
The current crisis (it’s not really too strong a word, although most people are still in various levels of denial) about traumatic head stresses in American football has, once again, revealed the massive conflicts of interest involved in the job description of “team doctor” and “NFL consulting doctor.”
Now, I know that NFL does not participate in WADA/USADA (which makes it and the other American sports that don’t joke-sports for me), but if WADA were to offer independent medical assessments and support beyond anti-doping?
I suppose that I’d like to see WADA, etc. transform its mission from being simply anti-doping to encouraging healthy sport.
WADA’s mission isn’t just about rule setting. They do have a big edu side too. Do bear in mind WADA is what, six, seven years old? And they came in facing a big problem in one partic area.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
allowing/denying riders will affect the success of the race
Potentially also opens you to massive law-suits, which was the big fear factor in the UCI in teh 90s.
Wasn’t there a Brit athlete who bankrupted her fed one time? (May be exaggerating that story a bit … really need to upgrade my memory).
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
have TUEs agreed by a central point.
The rules are being toughened, and have improved a lot in the last few years. It’s no longer a case of going to the family doc, wheezing a bit and him signing you off with asthma. See WADA’s site re standardisation.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
All good comments ike. Some quick responses:
1) Look at the WADA IV rule. It has a TUE expemtpion. 90% of your concerns taken care of right there.
2) If a rider is so ill he needs heavy medication, seriously, should he be riding or should he be sent to bed with a book and a bottle of Lucozade?
3) If you are dehydrated so bad you need an IV there’s something wrong. And that’s where the race doctor comes in.
4) Riding through the pain is something we overvalue. Pain is your body’s way of telling you there’s a problem. It’s not your body’s way of telling you to get macho. THere are riders who have ridden on through the pain and ended their careers. I think Cyrille Guimard is prob one of the most famous, away back when.
5) The role of the race doctor I may come back to in a spearate piece. Vrijman – yes, him with the bucket of whitewash – once suggested that the only doctors that should be allowed in teh sport shoudl be employed by the UCI and rotated through the teams so they don’t attached. Having been an auditor, I can point out a dozen probs with that logic, but it was an interesting idea.
6) Sad cases make poor laws.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Funniest reponse I’ve had to this on Twitter was UCI Overlord. He suggested that the UCI is only tossing the no needles idea out as a way to get JV to agree on no radios. A lil give and take. Satire, I love you.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
Before this slips off into the archive, one issue I want to stress.
I really do think there may be some mis-reporting going on here.
I think the UCI may be looking at the corticosteroid stand-down, and they could probably do that within their own rules.
But the needles ban is a bigger story and I’m not sure it can be done (or is even really being considered to be done) by the UCI on their own. That sounds like a WADA move to me.
Pity the UCI won’t answer questions put to them by DDIFP. (I did mail them.)
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
kind of missing the mark (excuse the pun)
bearing in mind that most peds can also be taken orally or by patches it would only affect transfusions. in fact hgh works better via a patch as the release is slower, more consistent and can be monitored. I used hgh post chemotherapy and the patch was by far the best option. however I’ve never drawn off my own blood, stored it in a crap fridge and reinjected it!
What’s the mark?
And would you swallow EPO or Actovegin?
Clearly this would not only affect transfusions as they’ve been banned for six years already. This is something different.
pounding along in three ratios like a sonata
like a Ritter with pommelled scrotum atra cura on the step
Botticelli from the fork down pestling the transmission
tires bleeding voiding zeep the highway
kind of missing the mark (excuse the pun)
And would you swallow EPO or Actovegin?————————————————————
actovegin is available in tablet form as are epo derivatives. hence my point that banning needles doesn’t really acheive anything.
epo in tablets
I based my post on http://www.springerlink.com/content/j021251578523614/ apologies if I’m wrong on epo but I’m 100% on the money with actovegin.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Podium Cafe
Related FanShots on Podium Cafe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
