Drugs in other sports and the media.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Well, you are always going to win an argument by diminishing others, aren't you?

All I said is if 3/4ers of the riders use asthma drugs, I think the sport has a health problem or a drug problem

First of all where does this 3/4ers figure come from? You've just made that up.

Secondly who said professional sport is healthy - it's not. Just in cycling there are crashes every day - often serious, occasionally even fatal. Riding around Spain in 35 degree heat for three weeks is not healthy.

I seem to recall you were less concerned about riders' health when they were complaining about disc brakes.

Health and accidents are different things. It seems to me that in a way or another the vast majority of riders take drugs that are typically prescribed to a minority of "civilians". Is there an abuse of drugs (enhancing or not) in sport?

Well, over 10 years ago at the trial to Juventus FC, the drugs cabinet in the team training facility was described as "stocked to the equivalent level of a mid sized hospital" that had to "supply" around 120 allegedly healthy players of the main team and the young teams

Is that acceptable? Does sport have a problem with pharmaceutical abuse (PED or not)? Yes, it does

RichN95.

LanterneRouge010 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I can't help thinking that the newbie has rather dragged this thread off topic. It's about drugs in OTHER sports and the media, not just in cycling and one team in particular.

Oh sorry my bad. Have you guys discussed Farah and Rupp re working with Salazar? Or is Farah off limits too because he's British.

There's a search facility on this forum. Maybe you could use it to find out what people have actually said rather than using your 'critical thinking' to guess.

Richmond Racer 2

LanterneRouge010 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Who's blinded, LanterneRouge? I see you are a new forum member, so welcome

British fans who believe that Froome, Sky, Farah and Radcliffe are just hard workers and marginal gains etc.
Columbian fans who think Nairo was born at altitude so thats why he is so strong.
Americans (and the english speaking world) who thought Lance was just a tough competitor with mental determination.

With the history of cycling and athletics, fans should think critically about the legitimacy of dominant performances.

Bit sad though.

*sad face*

Richmond Racer 2

LanterneRouge010 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I can't help thinking that the newbie has rather dragged this thread off topic. It's about drugs in OTHER sports and the media, not just in cycling and one team in particular.

Oh sorry my bad. Have you guys discussed Farah and Rupp re working with Salazar? Or is Farah off limits too because he's British.

There's a great forum over on letsrun.com. T'rif it is

kingstongraham

LanterneRouge010 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I can't help thinking that the newbie has rather dragged this thread off topic. It's about drugs in OTHER sports and the media, not just in cycling and one team in particular.

Oh sorry my bad. Have you guys discussed Farah and Rupp re working with Salazar? Or is Farah off limits too because he's British.

There's only 172 pages on this thread. I think you're safe assuming that we've steered clear of the most often accused current athlete.

TheBigBean

LanterneRouge010 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I can't help thinking that the newbie has rather dragged this thread off topic. It's about drugs in OTHER sports and the media, not just in cycling and one team in particular.

Oh sorry my bad. Have you guys discussed Farah and Rupp re working with Salazar? Or is Farah off limits too because he's British.

Yes it has been discussed. Farah is not off limits. That is much more on topic.

The purpose of the thread is to make cycling fans feel better as other sports are dragged through the mud.

If you'd like to throw allegations at Sky there is a dedicated thread for that too. It's here viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=13032670

Have fun.

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Health and accidents are different things. It seems to me that in a way or another the vast majority of riders take drugs that are typically prescribed to a minority of "civilians". Is there an abuse of drugs (enhancing or not) in sport?

Well, over 10 years ago at the trial to Juventus FC, the drugs cabinet in the team training facility was described as "stocked to the equivalent level of a mid sized hospital" that had to "supply" around 120 allegedly healthy players of the main team and the young teams

Is that acceptable? Does sport have a problem with pharmaceutical abuse (PED or not)? Yes, it does

Taking a cabinet full of drugs and using a ventolin are not equivalents. Lots of average people use asthma inhalers as a precaution before exercising, so why shouldn't a pro before even harder exercise?

The question to ask is - 'Would this be normal behaviour for the average man in the street'. Ventolin inhalers - yes. Using prednisone for treating a chest problem - yes. Shovelling down a handful pills on a daily basis - no.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

.

The question to ask is - 'Would this be normal behaviour for the average man in the street'.. Shovelling down a handful pills on a daily basis - no.

You're based in Cardiff no?

I call BS.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

The question to ask is - 'Would this be normal behaviour for the average man in the street'. Ventolin inhalers - yes. Using prednisone for treating a chest problem - yes. Shovelling down a handful pills on a daily basis - no.

How many of your club mates inhale before or during a ride? It's not abnormal behaviour, but if a majority do it, the word to use is epidemic.

One would like to believe a bunch of 20 something with the most amazing VO2 max should need fewer medications than the average 50 something with 30 Kg overweight and an incipient diabetes, rather than more.

There was an experiment called the Giro Bio, which went on for a few years and replaced the Giro for amateurs, where riders slept all together and the race organisers provided the official doctors, the only ones allowed to see the riders... prescriptions were cut by 90% as a result... it never gained much popularity... guess why... :roll:

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The question to ask is - 'Would this be normal behaviour for the average man in the street'. Ventolin inhalers - yes. Using prednisone for treating a chest problem - yes. Shovelling down a handful pills on a daily basis - no.

How many of your club mates inhale before or during a ride? It's not abnormal behaviour, but if a majority do it, the word to use is epidemic.

As far as I know two of my teammates do (I'm a hockey player not a cyclist). None of them make anything like the efforts that an elite endurance athlete makes though, so much less at risk from EIB.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

One would like to believe a bunch of 20 something with the most amazing VO2 max should need fewer medications than the average 50 something with 30 Kg overweight and an incipient diabetes, rather than more.

By average man in the street - I mean average fit, active, aged 20-35 man in the street

joelsim

I see we've had another new joinee from the other place.

[rolls eyes]

tangled_metal

I got prescribed ventolin last autumn after difficulty breathing after early morning commutes. Coughing fits and asthma like difficulty breathing. I took two puffs 15 minutes before leaving and at the end I only got a short coughing fit. My commute time decreased slightly with a couple of best times on strava segments too. It was purely because I could breathe at the level I should have been and closer to the level i in the summer. No performance enhancing just recovering to my usual level. In summer I have used it for a period of time during my peak hayfever season due to breathing difficulties at night mostly but also in the day.

If ventolin is enhancing I can say it only seemed to even me out to my typical performance. Mind you I'm at nearly the other end of the spectrum to pro cyclists in the exercise levels so it does happen to the ordinary man too.

thegreatdivide

Pinno wrote:

Allez Mark wrote:

Amazing how many athletes need prednisone, prednisolone, methylprednisone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, riamcinolone or formoterol at sometime in their careers. I have never taken any of these. I wonder how many people on this forum have ever been prescribed them.

Yes me - Prednisolone and methylprednisolone. I wouldn't have called it a career move though.

And me - prednisolone (from 5mg daily for several months and quite a few stonking 80mg 7-day courses) salbutamol and beclometasone.

ugo.santalucia

Altius fortius... that was the adagio...

The reason professional sport exists is not for a bunch of overpaid individuals to achieve their aspirations, but rather to give an example, provide role models and occasionally distraction from political turmoil, to physically inferior masses. This is what folks want to see, this is what sponsors pay for.
In time weakness has become acceptable, occasionally endorsed (don't we all love the flurry of tears modern athletes seem to produce in buckets every time they jump on a podium? Compare with the composure of Coppi and Anquetil please).
If it turns out professional athletes are in essence a bunch of sick and overmedicated achievers, who rely on Glaxosmithkline not only to perform, but to stay alive, I doubt sponsors will be interested to pump money into the sport... after all we all want ourselves and our kids to stay healthy and not having to rely on GSK for as long as possible.

Without being branded as a eugenics enthusiast, I would like to believe the majority of professional athletes have good enough genes to do their thing without Ventolin, but I might be wrong and it might well be that 70 years of antibiotics yielded a generation of athletes who cannot survive without medications... hopefully not, but maybe that is the case... :roll:

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Altius fortius... that was the adagio...

The reason professional sport exists is not for a bunch of overpaid individuals to achieve their aspirations, but rather to give an example, provide role models and occasionally distraction from political turmoil, to physically inferior masses. This is what folks want to see, this is what sponsors pay for.
In time weakness has become acceptable, occasionally endorsed (don't we all love the flurry of tears modern athletes seem to produce in buckets every time they jump on a podium? Compare with the composure of Coppi and Anquetil please).
If it turns out professional athletes are in essence a bunch of sick and overmedicated achievers, who rely on Glaxosmithkline not only to perform, but to stay alive, I doubt sponsors will be interested to pump money into the sport... after all we all want ourselves and our kids to stay healthy and not having to rely on GSK for as long as possible.

Without being branded as a eugenics enthusiast, I would like to believe the majority of professional athletes have good enough genes to do their thing without Ventolin, but I might be wrong and it might well be that 70 years of antibiotics yielded a generation of athletes who cannot survive without medications... hopefully not, but maybe that is the case... :roll:

So following this argument you must be against sportsmen wearing contact lenses. After all they are an artificial means for correcting a biological weakness. And they certainly enhance performance in most sports.

Or are they OK because they can't be described as a drug and elicit a Pavlovian knee jerk reaction.

If you deny sportsmen medical treatment available routinely to the general public then eventually sport will be contested by the the weakest in society not the best.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

So following this argument you must be against sportsmen wearing contact lenses. After all they are an artificial means for correcting a biological weakness. And they certainly enhance performance in most sports.

Or are they OK because they can't be described as a drug and elicit a Pavlovian knee jerk reaction.

I am ok with lenses, thank you... mine doesn't want to be a Synecdoche... I am specifically talking about drugs and only about drugs as in pharmaceuticals to treat conditions, pain etc...

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So following this argument you must be against sportsmen wearing contact lenses. After all they are an artificial means for correcting a biological weakness. And they certainly enhance performance in most sports.

Or are they OK because they can't be described as a drug and elicit a Pavlovian knee jerk reaction.

I am ok with lenses, thank you... mine doesn't want to be a Synecdoche... I am specifically talking about drugs and only about drugs as in pharmaceuticals to treat conditions, pain etc...

But your objection was to genetic weakness being corrected. Why is one correction acceptable, but other not just because only one falls within a particular label. Yet the lenses actually enhance the individual, while ventolin merely prevents deteriation.

blazing_saddles

The Clinic are finding it harder to get any mileage out of the Froome leak, than David Lopez climbing those Spanish gradients.
Even Zorzoli comes off smelling more of roses and less of what is spread upon them.
The "backdated" TUE being issued to correct the original, which had allowed prednisolone for the whole year, not just for a week.

As for the idea of whether or not medication during competition should be withheld, (banned) I think folks are completely ignoring any duty of care. Which is totally unacceptable.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

So following this argument you must be against sportsmen wearing contact lenses. After all they are an artificial means for correcting a biological weakness. And they certainly enhance performance in most sports.

Or are they OK because they can't be described as a drug and elicit a Pavlovian knee jerk reaction.

I am ok with lenses, thank you... mine doesn't want to be a Synecdoche... I am specifically talking about drugs and only about drugs as in pharmaceuticals to treat conditions, pain etc...

But your objection was to genetic weakness being corrected. Why is one correction acceptable, but other not just because only one falls within a particular label. Yet the lenses actually enhance the individual, while ventolin merely prevents deteriation.

You won't drag me into that... I said what I said... far too much use of pharmaceuticals in sport, PED or not is irrelevant to me. 40% of GB olympic cyclists are on asthma treatment... 40% FFS!!!

Richmond Racer 2

[quote="Blazing Saddles"]The Clinic are finding it harder to get any mileage out of the Froome leak, than David Lopez climbing those Spanish gradients.
Even Zorzoli comes off smelling more of roses and less of what is spread upon them.
The "backdated" TUE being issued to correct the original, which had allowed prednisolone for the whole year, not just for a week.

As for the idea of whether or not medication during competition should be withheld, (banned) I think folks are completely ignoring any duty of care. Which is totally unacceptable.[/quote]

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The Clinic are finding it harder to get any mileage out of the Froome leak, than David Lopez climbing those Spanish gradients.
Even Zorzoli comes off smelling more of roses and less of what is spread upon them.
The "backdated" TUE being issued to correct the original, which had allowed prednisolone for the whole year, not just for a week.

You would have thought that the revelation that the Tour winner is not abusing TUEs as many have done in the past would be good news to the anti-doping community. A ray of hope. An example to others. But apparently it's terrible.

Richmond Racer 2

All this kind of thing ever does is to reinforce the stance of the entrenched

And frankly the reaction of at least some shows exactly why people can go whistle for athletes to go public voluntarily

Screaming that a TUE means the athlete is trying to game the system, and expecting athletes to be cowed into disclosing personal medical conditions, is nothing less than delusional



Edit: when even Seppelt is pointing out the wrongness of jumping to conclusions from TUEs...

tailwindhome

What am I missing here?

Why is no one asking why the TUE has a 'Effective Date' of 27/04 for treatment which Zorloli notes begins 29/04 (which is what Sky reported)

The 27/04 being the morning of LBL 2014 when Froome DNSed after a drug test.

blazing_saddles

TailWindHome wrote:

What am I missing here?

Why is no one asking why the TUE has a 'Effective Date' of 27/04 for treatment which Zorloli notes begins 29/04 (which is what Sky reported)

The 27/04 being the morning of LBL 2014 when Froome DNSed after a drug test.

I think the answer you seek is here:-

https://twitter.com/TeflonDub/status/776200144387772416

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

What am I missing here?

Why is no one asking why the TUE has a 'Effective Date' of 27/04 for treatment which Zorloli notes begins 29/04 (which is what Sky reported)

The 27/04 being the morning of LBL 2014 when Froome DNSed after a drug test.

Zorzoli can't fill forms out properly. That's why a second corrected report gets posted on the same day. (And even that has a mistake, which is spotted and corrected when WADA do their review in June)

Richmond Racer 2

Zorzoli really does have a future career as a proof-reader for Cyclingnews

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

What am I missing here?

Why is no one asking why the TUE has a 'Effective Date' of 27/04 for treatment which Zorloli notes begins 29/04 (which is what Sky reported)

The 27/04 being the morning of LBL 2014 when Froome DNSed after a drug test.

Zorzoli can't fill forms out properly. That's why a second corrected report gets posted on the same day. (And even that has a mistake, which is spotted and corrected when WADA do their review in June)

So - Froome doesn't have a TUE which would be in effect for 27/04?

Richmond Racer 2

^given that Zorzoli corrected it and posted the corrected one almost immediately, it seems sensible to conclude No

blazing_saddles

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

What am I missing here?

Why is no one asking why the TUE has a 'Effective Date' of 27/04 for treatment which Zorloli notes begins 29/04 (which is what Sky reported)

The 27/04 being the morning of LBL 2014 when Froome DNSed after a drug test.

Zorzoli can't fill forms out properly. That's why a second corrected report gets posted on the same day. (And even that has a mistake, which is spotted and corrected when WADA do their review in June)

So - Froome doesn't have a TUE which would be in effect for 27/04?

Why do you ask?

Richmond Racer 2

Just a guess but I suspect some of the accounts TWH follows have put about a theory that Froome tested pos on the morning of LBL, Sky pulled him and Zorzoli whipped him up a nice little TUE as a cover-up. Just a wild guess.

Amiright, TWH?