IF the intention of the hackers behind the ‘Fancy Bears’ leak of medical data was to deflect attention away from the Russian drugs scandal, then they have succeeded handsomely.

Instead of criticising the state-sponsored doping programme that poisoned so much of Russian sport, those who cherish a drugs-free sporting world are fighting amongst themselves as they wrestle with the ethical dilemma highlighted by this month’s leaks.

By flagging up the use of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) by athletes such as Sir Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome, Nicola Adams and Justin Rose, Olympians who have championed clean sport, the hackers have muddied the divide that separates right from wrong.

TUEs are exemption notices that permit an athlete to take a prohibited substance for a defined period of time in order to treat a medical condition. At their best, they allow people with conditions such as asthma to compete in professional sport when they would otherwise be unable to survive the physical demands of their chosen pursuit. At their worst, it can be argued they create a window of opportunity for a short-term performance boost that would otherwise be deemed illegal.

On the one hand, British hockey gold medallist Sam Quek provided a compelling argument for her use of a TUE when she was interviewed in The Times earlier this week. Quek, who was part of the British team that won gold in Rio this summer, had a TUE for a salbutamol inhaler to treat asthma in 2008, with the drug having been removed from the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) prohibited list in 2010.

Given that she has suffered from asthma throughout her life, there is no doubt that Quek’s use of a previously-banned substance was medically justified. She could not have competed at the highest level without it. But if TUEs come to be viewed as a legitimised form of cheating, might other aspiring professionals be reluctant to make applications of their own in the future, with potentially fatal consequences?

“My real worry going forward is in future Olympic cycles there will be a hockey girl like me, chasing her Olympic dream and pushing her body to its limits in that plight,” she said.

“She will become out of breath due to asthma and will need an inhaler; not to get an unfair sporting advantage, but to breathe. To make sure she does not die. Yet she will think twice about using one, or perhaps use it and feel guilty about doing so, or worse still, refuse to use it completely.”

Clearly, health concerns have to remain paramount, and it would be grossly irresponsible to argue that there should be a blanket ban on TUEs because such a move would seriously endanger some competitors’ wellbeing.

But on the other side of the coin, you have the questions that are being asked of Wiggins as he sees his hard-earned reputation as a paragon of clean cycling ripped apart.

Wiggins’ leaked medical data revealed that he was granted three TUEs for the treatment of asthma and allergies between 2011 and 2013, the period that contained his victory in the Tour de France. On each occasion, the TUEs were granted immediately before his major target race for the season.

There is no suggestion Wiggins broke any rules – the TUEs were signed off by independent medical experts – but it is an uncomfortable coincidence that his conditions flared up just as he was about to tackle his most gruelling challenge of the year.

Similarly, it is unfortunate for Team Sky that Wiggins’ use of TUEs coincides in part with the period when the team employed the disgraced Belgian doctor Geert Leinders, who was banned for doping offences committed when he was employed by the Dutch Rabobank team, and that Wiggins’ actions contradict some of what he said in his autobiography in 2012.

One of Wiggins’ TUEs was for the injection of the drug triamcinolone to treat allergies, but Britain’s most decorated Olympian claimed in his autobiography that he had “never” used needles other than for vaccinations or when requiring a drip.

Again, it is worth reiterating that Wiggins has not committed any doping offences, and that WADA are completely satisfied with his actions. However, it does not look good when victory in the Tour de France was preceded by sanctioned drug taking that had previously been hidden from public view.

It is the secrecy that is a big part of the problem here, and thereby lies the path to a solution that could restore some much-needed faith in the TUE system.

While there is an understandable concern about breaching medical confidentiality, athletes applying for a TUE should have to agree that if it is granted, it will become public knowledge. No hidden files; no uncertainty about who is taking what.

That way, competitors who obviously need a certain treatment to address an otherwise debilitating condition will still be able to get it. They might feel uncomfortable about disclosing their condition publicly, but sadly that is a price worth paying if it creates trust within the system.

Other athletes who might be tempted to push the rules on TUEs in order to chase a short-term gain that is not medically essential would think twice about subjecting themselves to the public scrutiny that would follow. Froome opted against applying for a TUE to treat a potential chest infection during the 2015 Tour de France because he was worried about the negative publicity that might follow. He went on to win the race without it.


**


OF all the British successes at the Paralympic Games, it was the coverage of a rare Team GB failure that was the most positive development in terms of the perception of disability sport in this country.

David Weir failed to win a medal in Rio, struggling in all five of his events. His performances were heavily criticised in the media, he railed against perceived failings within British Athletics claiming he had been “stabbed in the back a lot”, and his relationship with the governing body has been the subject of a number of in-depth analyses.

In other words, he was treated exactly the same as any leading British able-bodied sportsman or woman who failed to live up to the expectations on the biggest stage.

In the past, Weir might have been let off with a patronising, ‘Didn’t he do well – he’s overcome so much just to be racing’. It is a hugely positive development that such a condescending attitude will no longer wash.