- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome at 2013 Tour de France launch (copyright Simon MacMichael)Chris Froome says he’s in favour of 24-hour drug testing
Chris Froome has said that he backs 24-hour drug testing of cyclists, something the UCI said it would explore today in its response to the recommendations of the report published on Monday by the Cycling Independent Reform Commission.
The Team Sky rider, winner of the Tour de France in 2013, is the only professional cyclist currently riding who is listed as having been interviewed by the CIRC, although others may have done so but requested anonymity.
He has also said that he has only ever had two Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) in his career, his assertion coming in a week when retired rider former world and Olympic champion Nicole Cooke had mentioned Froome specifically when criticising their use.
Among the recommendations of the CIRC report was that riders should be targeted for testing between the hours of 11pm and 6am amid concerns that some are micro-dosing with EPO.
Currently, under the World Anti-Doping Code’s whereabouts rules, athletes are not required to make themselves available for testing between those hours.
In what turned into an impromptu post-training ride Q&A session on Twitter on Wednesday, Froome said: “I for one welcome 24hr testing. It may be an inconvenience but if it can help clean up the sport that I love let’s do it.”
Following publication of the report, Cooke, who was also interviewed by the CIRC, criticised the current regime of rules surrounding TUEs, which allow riders to use medicines containing substances which would otherwise be banned as long as their use is authorised by a suitable medical professional.
The report expressed concerns that the system is being abused, and Cooke highlighted Froome’s presence at last year’s Tour de Romandie, when he took corticosteroids under a TUE to help him deal with chest pains, as an issue of concern.
Writing in the Guardian, Cooke insisted that Brian Cookson had failed the other cyclists competing in the race, which Froome won for the second year running, and that the UCI president should apologise to them.
“I don’t think it is at all right that Chris should have the race and prize money taken off him retrospectively, but Cookson needs to issue a very clear message: he should be apologising to the rest of the riders for failing them,” Cooke insisted.
“That TUE application should not have been approved; Froome and Sky should have had a clear choice of either riding without steroids or pulling out.
“I never found I could be anywhere near the front of a long race when I was ill.”
On Wednesday, in response to a Twitter user who asked him: “Are you willing to release details of all your TUEs for the last few years?” Froome replied: “I have had 2 during my career.”
In its response to the CIRC report today, the UCI said it would “Encourage the CADF [Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation] to order night-time testing where they believe it is necessary and proportionate.”
Cookson, outlining the steps he has taken on tackling doping related issues since becoming the governing body’s president in September 2013 also said: “We have reinvigorated our Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee and now all TUE decisions must be unanimously approved by three members. This commitment goes beyond what is required by the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (ISTUE).”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- David9694 1 hour 8 min ago
I cling on to the notions drivers/ people verbalise like "wasn't Center Parcs lovely" and "I've got no choice" in the hope that they may one day...
- brooksby 1 hour 23 min ago
Ah, but the terrorists build their invisible bases under those hospitals and refugee camps, and some of those children are just really short adult...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 34 min ago
Am I right in thinking that this has been the case in NL for over half a century (or 30 years nationally)? With a brief interruption from 2003 -...
- Bezzard74 1 hour 40 min ago
100% agree on all points! ...
- cyclisto 1 hour 47 min ago
I think this mostly....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 31 min ago
A good point - cyclists are somewhere between pedestrians and motorcyclists (a few - electric motorcycles mainly, which are not legal) in terms of...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 45 min ago
Welcome - probably didn't show as they tagged it "not near miss of the day"?
- David9694 12 hours 4 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- mattw 16 hours 47 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
Add new comment
21 comments
I'm pretty sure that you need a TUE if you're a professional needing insulin. Don't forget, it's on the banned list as it can be used to promote muscle growth with HGH & steroids..
if insulin does not require a TUE then fine ...
However in Froome's case he needed a TUE and that should have meant he had to leave the race there and then for being ill. It happens to any athlete ....
not answered the question, if a rider had a condition and EPO was the only drug for it is that OK ?
Sorry but if you are not fit enough to ride at the top level without the need for PED's then maybe picked the wrong sport. It is unfortunate but how fart do you allow PEd's to be used ?
would you allow Beta Blockers, because Snooker banned the use as a clear aid in that sport.
You cant discriminate against people who require meds for their health its as simple as that.
Just like you cant discriminate against sex, race or a multitude of other groups. If you want to go down that line vote for UKIP.
UCI based in Switzerland of course.
The point is if as we know their drugs boost them how can you allow it ?
Say a condition needed EPO to treat it, would you be OK with that ?
In Froome's case, if in one day the condition flares up he has to pull out. Just like a cyclist would if they had flu etc as they can not take anything for it.
Just as a clarification, I assume this is in response to the previous poster who mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. That is not an EU institution, which I infer was the assumption behind your comment. All member states of the Council of Europe are signed up to the Court, which is virtually all European countries, and many more than just the members of the EU.
Having said all that, I've no idea if they'd ever even consider a case based on theoretical future rules that effectively ban diabetics or anyone else from competitive cycling.
I'm glad Froome is being openly cooperative with bodies like CIRC and supportive of more stringent testing, and I wish more pros exhibited the same attitude. The stain on cycling has been so deep that it still needs to adopt severe measures to clean up its image. If that means night testing, so be it. I also don't quite understand why they're even given the choice on the form to prevent their samples from being kept for future research, much less wording it in such a way that they have to opt in rather than opt out.
If you want to discriminate against diabetics (and Asthma suffers etc?), then you will need to take your case to the European court of human rights first before requesting the UCI (and other sporting authorities) to update their rules...
I like Nicole, and agree with so much she says - but on this issue, I think she has picked the wrong target.
I think there is a very strong case for reviewing and tightening up the rules around TUEs - but you cannot blame the riders/teams for using the rules as they have been written.
they can not be and if that means Froome has to pull out or diabetics can not race, sorry but tough, to mean anything a drugs policy has to be ZERO tolerance and no exemptions or weak excuses.
Can you refund me for my BC licence then as a type 1 diabetic ? Why should I & others be discriminated against because of the actions of others who are, on the whole, not reliant on daily injections of insulin to keep them alive ?
then some sports are not for you, it is tough but you take a banned substance. As others have not answered will you ?
If someone needed EPO for an illness and that was the only choice, OK for them to ride ?
It is a big jump to lump insulin dependent diabetics such as I who do not require a TUE - I simply notified BC when applying for a licence along with confirmation from my then GP.
Tough is a bit of an understatement to describe telling someone that they cannot compete in a sport they love through no fault of their own.
Due to the behaviour of athletes throughout the years this current situation has got to where it is & there is no easy answer but I have to disagree with you on a personal basis that I should be banned from competing because I take a hormone to keep me alive since childhood.
EPO is taken for people with illnesses - I'm not 100% but I believe it is often taken by people undergoing dialysis whose haemocrit levels fall below a certain figure. Should they be allowed to compete - if it keeps them alive but they wish to do so then why should they be prevented ? Tricky I know but comparing insulin with EPO or indeed comparing any 2 illnesses is a murky path. As for "demanding" an answer from others, perhaps there is no easy answer on this but I stand by my assertion that I & other insulin dependents should not be prevented from competing in sport.
Yet again Nicole gets slagged off for doing the very thing the sport needs ie telling it like it is .Does anyone seriously believe the current TUE rules are fit for purpose - how can the use of PED s be acceptable under any guise ?
Couldn't agree more that TUE's need to be monitored and kept to a minimum, but think Cooke looks an idiot for going after Froome. We need a body we can trust to look at all the data for individuals and teams with an understanding of what benefits the drugs give, not a lynch mob mentality blindly going after the one case the media have hold of. And I do believe riders have the right for TUEs to be kept out of the public domain.
Froome says he's in favour of night time testing when he knows it will rarely, if ever, happen.
Christ, he can't win can he?
He says he's in favour of more/better testing, everyone reckons he's hiding something in plain sight, he knows it'll never happen.
What would the comments look like if he'd have replied "oh no, I'm not in favour of night time testing"?! Willing to bet that the pitchforks will be out straight away and he'd be accused of having blood bags on his bed all night.
I feel really sorry for Chris, he's a nice guy, really quiet yet no matter what he says, he comes in for a load of stick about doping.
He's the only current pro to have admitted speaking to CIRC, I think that tells you everything you need to know. And the way everyone bangs on about that TUE, you'd think he was the only athlete ever to have done that too!
I agree. That's the problem. The other paradox is that he rides for the cleanest team in the peloton! I suppose fans with eyes and half a brain are an issue!
It is down to the UCI to tighten and make clear their rules on TUE's .You can not criticise teams or riders or class them as cheats if the are operating within the rules . They are not cheating or operating outside of the rules. We all should know removing your blood and exposing it to ultraviolet light then reinducing it is morally wrong even if it wasnt banned but if we asked the UCI can I do it and they said "sure why not, here's a certificate " then every team would do it because they are under a massive amount of pressure to win . So basically any "treatment" an athlete has should be cleared by the UCI and any athlete found to have participated in any "radical" new therapy designed to increase their athletic capabilities regardless of its UCI legal status should be banned as if they had a positive test.
Second that, Nicole is right, if you are ill, man up or go home, Froome is hiding behind crap TUE rules. If you that ill on Monday that you need banned drugs, you shouldn't be winning races on Tuesday. He's legally cheating.
So ban team novo nordisk?
Insulin can be used for performance enhancement (it has growth and metabolic effects, as well as diabetic control). Type I diabetics require insulin to remain healthy, but can participate in sport at international level (Steve Redgrave was diabetic) with appropriate TUEs.
Should these people have to choose between their health and elite level sport participation?
The doctors are ultimately responsible for TUEs. As long as the doctor is treating a recognised medical condition it is entirely reasonable for them to be used.
Spot on. Nicole Cooke is absolutely on the button, as always.