Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
Froome may have puffed on his inhaler too much or his circumstances may have caused him to test high. He now has to produce evidence to support the second scenario. If he succeeds the case will be dropped. If he doesn't he will get a ban (of months not years) and lose the VueltaPinno wrote:21 pages in 24 hours roughly. What has been the quintessential post to sum all of this up as I have a serious case of cba*?
*Beyond:
'
Marginal gains'.
Abuse of TUE's.
SKY PR engine popping the big end bearings.
Brailsford's surprise sudden retirement from cycling and going into coaching over weight rowers.
Froome getting a) metaphorically or literally guillotined by the French b) getting a ban and/or c) having the Vuelta win rescinded.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Froome may have puffed on his inhaler too much or his circumstances may have caused him to test high. He now has to produce evidence to support the second scenario. If he succeeds the case will be dropped. If he doesn't he will get a ban (of months not years) and lose the VueltaPinno wrote:21 pages in 24 hours roughly. What has been the quintessential post to sum all of this up as I have a serious case of cba*?
*Beyond:
'
Marginal gains'.
Abuse of TUE's.
SKY PR engine popping the big end bearings.
Brailsford's surprise sudden retirement from cycling and going into coaching over weight rowers.
Froome getting a) metaphorically or literally guillotined by the French b) getting a ban and/or c) having the Vuelta win rescinded.
Thank you Rich.
I hope it is the former. Regardless of the outcome, the French will go to town on it. Anyone know what the reaction is in the French press?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So do people who have invested far too much time into this think he's gonna get banned or not?
Ultimately that's all that really matters.
What's the betting?
I think not. Wouldnt be at all surprised if Sky having known for 3 months now have already done Chris's PK test and are in process of sorting it out with Wada. It would be massively out of character of them to announce Froome for the giro knowing this might come up without having a plan to deal with it that goes beyond stretching it out for an indefinite period0 -
RichN95 wrote:
The doping authorities are quite aware that the threshold test is not watertight and that there are several circumstances that can lead to a high reading. That's why Froome has been invited to present evidence. If the evidence points to a legal dose leading to a high reading, then they will just drop the case. If it doesn't they'll open a disciplinary case. At the moment we are at the 'brought down the station for questioning' stage not the courtroom.mididoctors wrote:even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.
The rules don't need changing, they're fine. People's understanding of them does.
200% though?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Why would their respiratory function be impaired? People get dropped because the blood can't get enough oxygen to the muscles causing lactic acid to build up. The lungs can get enough oxygen in, the blood just can't process it.Wheelspinner wrote:Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
Look at stress hormones the answer is there0 -
If he does the PK tests and they turn up a result more than a 1000 then it's probably not a case that the UCI want to pursue. They don't want to get into a protracted, damaging and expensive legal battle. Both parties will want a speedy resolution.Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
The doping authorities are quite aware that the threshold test is not watertight and that there are several circumstances that can lead to a high reading. That's why Froome has been invited to present evidence. If the evidence points to a legal dose leading to a high reading, then they will just drop the case. If it doesn't they'll open a disciplinary case. At the moment we are at the 'brought down the station for questioning' stage not the courtroom.mididoctors wrote:even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.
The rules don't need changing, they're fine. People's understanding of them does.
200% though?Twitter: @RichN950 -
I genuinely don’t know, which is why I’m asking. I agree that their ability to convert the lungs intake might not be up to it, but that is different, no?RichN95 wrote:
Why would their respiratory function be impaired? People get dropped because the blood can't get enough oxygen to the muscles causing lactic acid to build up. The lungs can get enough oxygen in, the blood just can't process it.Wheelspinner wrote:Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
But the relentless barrage of people defending Exercise Induced Asthma as a reason for using an inhaler tells me that its a condition that could be affecting not just exclusively those people who are diagnosed asthmatic and using an inhaler, but to a similar but maybe lesser extent teh otherwise unafflicted. Thus meaning their ability to suck in as much oxygen as they usually can is therefore impaired relative to their “normal”.
I know I’m just sceptical but my view is the use of an inhaler or other form of medication is not ever even considered to be performance enhancing, but it is very probably being used as insurance to minimise the athlete’s performance deterioration. The docs know that all the competition will be suffering some drop in capability from EIA, however minor, and if their man can legally prevent a similar drop, then do it. The race winning margins are so tiny, any difference is significant.
I don’t care about Froome either way. He’s far from the only one using an inhaler, difference only is he wins stuff and gets tested more, thats it.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Using an inhaler is completely permitted. You don't even have to prove you have asthma. It's available to everyone. If it does all the things you guess it does, then they're free to take it. It's not in any way harmful. No different to smearing Vicks on your jersey (as footballers used to do).Wheelspinner wrote:
I genuinely don’t know, which is why I’m asking. I agree that their ability to convert the lungs intake might not be up to it, but that is different, no?RichN95 wrote:
Why would their respiratory function be impaired? People get dropped because the blood can't get enough oxygen to the muscles causing lactic acid to build up. The lungs can get enough oxygen in, the blood just can't process it.Wheelspinner wrote:Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
But the relentless barrage of people defending Exercise Induced Asthma as a reason for using an inhaler tells me that its a condition that could be affecting not just exclusively those people who are diagnosed asthmatic and using an inhaler, but to a similar but maybe lesser extent teh otherwise unafflicted. Thus meaning their ability to suck in as much oxygen as they usually can is therefore impaired relative to their “normal”.
I know I’m just sceptical but my view is the use of an inhaler or other form of medication is not ever even considered to be performance enhancing, but it is very probably being used as insurance to minimise the athlete’s performance deterioration. The docs know that all the competition will be suffering some drop in capability from EIA, however minor, and if their man can legally prevent a similar drop, then do it. The race winning margins are so tiny, any difference is significant.
I don’t care about Froome either way. He’s far from the only one using an inhaler, difference only is he wins stuff and gets tested more, thats it.
It'll do sod all use though according experts. But then people have had enough of experts, haven't they.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Wheelspinner wrote:Navrig2 wrote:Normal as in the airways are as clear as any person who doesn't suffer from asthma, exercise induced or not.
You whole rant is speculative and based on fairy dust (which may or may not induce asthma).
That didn’t take long. At least some of my guesses were on the mark. Someone who’s defining characteristic according to their avatar is an ability to fart no less!
It wasn’t even a rant, but don’t let that put you off. Care to provide any facts then? When you say “normal as in as clear as any person who doesn’t suffer blah blah blah” what is your reference for comparison? A person under identical extreme effort conditions, or a person who has been for a coffee shop ride at slow pace or a person who is blissfully free of any asthma at all under ideal conditions? Or what? Insult me all day if you like, but I’m hopeful you can fart out something more useful.
I *will* hold my breath just in case.
If you can, read this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781870
Or this
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/56/9/6750 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So most ppl think he loses a GT?
Are fans of his gonna count em like Contador fans count his?
Yes I think he'll lose it but I'm not certain he will. Piepoli mamaged to get out of a similar score without a ban and Sky will pay whatever it takes if there is a way to make this go away.
I'll count it as a Nibali win if Froome loses it.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Thank you.Navrig2 wrote:If you can, read this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8781870
Or this
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/56/9/675
I’d read the first, says little beyond “not performance enhancing”.
The second includes an interesting piece though, under “Discussion” paragraph 3.
“As in previous studies, salbutamol had a significant bronchodilating effect in our normal subjects. At the beginning of exercise this *may* (my emphasis) improve adaptation to increased work of breathing by reducing respiratory resistance...”
It also says salbutamol improved their post-exercise dyspnoea, or breathing difficulties in plain terms.
Both of those things sound like a benefit?
The authors conclusion paragraph suggests there may be a benefit for even non-asthmatics.
With regards Froome, he’s known for taking steps to maximise his oxygen intake (nose turbines, anyone?). Why not take advantage of every other possible option if it’s legit? Except when you get the numbers wrong, eh?
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Listening to the interview Froome did with Sky Sports News earlier, it appears that ‘stuff’ of some description has been submitted already.0
-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scand ... amol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Nothing in this makes sense, we'll see what Sky can come up with but any evidence which suggests Froome could have exceeded the limit by 100% legally will beg the question why we haven't had many other cyclists exceeding the limit by lower amounts. If it's possible to hit 2000 then at face value exceeding 1000 shouldn't be unusual.
Well since this was leaked, we actually have no idea if or how many other cyclists may have exceeded the limit and been able to explain it satisfactorily. Exceeding 1000 might not be especially unusual.
Where are the fancy bears when you need them hey?0 -
Ironically Martin, whilst complaining about this damaging the credibility of the sport, has further damaged the credibility of the sport.inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.0 -
inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.0 -
Still, if you're going to claim to be leading the anti-doping struggle, it's probably a good idea to be familiar with anti-doping regulations.Rick Chasey wrote:
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.0 -
thegibdog wrote:
Still, if you're going to claim to be leading the anti-doping struggle, it's probably a good idea to be familiar with anti-doping regulations.Rick Chasey wrote:
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Again, I think you're missing the point.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.
Maybe a detail, but i think it was due to doped German riders, notably Patrik Sinkewitz, that provoked the decision, rather than the overall problem in the sport.0 -
inseine wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.
Maybe a detail, but i think it was due to doped German riders, notably Patrik Sinkewitz, that provoked the decision, rather than the overall problem in the sport.
Think you mean Ullrich's doping that made them all upset. I doubt 99% of Germans knew who Sinkewitz was. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So most ppl think he loses a GT?
Are fans of his gonna count em like Contador fans count his?
I'm pretty sure Contador fans won't.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
For 99% of the population this story is a cyclist failing a drugs test. It’s like telling them water is wet.
Martins reaction makes no difference to them. It’s what they already think.0 -
What point?Rick Chasey wrote:
Again, I think you're missing the point.thegibdog wrote:
Still, if you're going to claim to be leading the anti-doping struggle, it's probably a good idea to be familiar with anti-doping regulations.Rick Chasey wrote:Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.
Martin's is justified in feeling aggrieved by the impact that doping has had on his career, but his comments in this instance are ill-informed and are simply exacerbating the situation.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.
Eh?
I take it you mean national tv, cos their riders sure turned up.
Germans had to watch the Tour live on Eurosport, just like we in the UK had to do for years, until ITV 4 turned up."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
The doping authorities are quite aware that the threshold test is not watertight and that there are several circumstances that can lead to a high reading. That's why Froome has been invited to present evidence. If the evidence points to a legal dose leading to a high reading, then they will just drop the case. If it doesn't they'll open a disciplinary case. At the moment we are at the 'brought down the station for questioning' stage not the courtroom.mididoctors wrote:even if the testing is fff'd up changing the rules now is double standards. if they want to review the system do it after he takes one for the sport.
The rules don't need changing, they're fine. People's understanding of them does.
200% though?
The Lausanne study showed one rider (admittedly only one) getting 350% off a legal dose so it seems possible.
Doesn't mean it applies to Froome though obviously.0 -
Given the medical tests and records these teams keep, it should be fairly simple for them to see what his levels normally look like. if it's skirting around the 90% most of the time then you can see how it would be easy to go over. But if he's normally well down the range then it's harder to explain.
I've also read reports that Salbutamol does have PE effects when taken orally: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077918 - I bet it's much harder to judge your urine output levels when you take it orally.
There is something very dodgy about this whole asthma thing IMO. The sheer number of top endurance athletes all requiring asthma treatment just doesn't seem credible to me. I suspect there IS a performance enhancing effect. I'm not saying it makes an athlete operating at 100% get to 110% but more like that it helps get past natural physiology that lead athletes to drop to say 90%.
I have a little bit of experience in this as it happens. I do BJJ and fighting some 15 stone MMA monster on the mats burns through oxygen like nothing I've ever experienced. I've never had asthma and have a good lung capacity but quite often, if I push it hard, I get out of breath to the point where I have to tap out and it's hard to get it back to normal. Someone handed me their inhaler a year back and it really helped so I tried taking a puff before a bout and it pretty much stops that. I.e. my limit for cardio is raised. I can push harder. Now maybe I've got "exercise induced asthma" and never knew it, or not.0 -
Wheelspinner wrote:
I genuinely don’t know, which is why I’m asking. I agree that their ability to convert the lungs intake might not be up to it, but that is different, no?RichN95 wrote:
Why would their respiratory function be impaired? People get dropped because the blood can't get enough oxygen to the muscles causing lactic acid to build up. The lungs can get enough oxygen in, the blood just can't process it.Wheelspinner wrote:Given the widespread dependency on this drug among such elite athletes, I’m guessing it’s because it returns them to that 90-95% of their base resting capability. Meanwhile the non-diagnosed, Non-Puffer losers are struggling up that last bit of climb with their slightly impaired respiratory function, and getting dropped.
But the relentless barrage of people defending Exercise Induced Asthma as a reason for using an inhaler tells me that its a condition that could be affecting not just exclusively those people who are diagnosed asthmatic and using an inhaler, but to a similar but maybe lesser extent teh otherwise unafflicted. Thus meaning their ability to suck in as much oxygen as they usually can is therefore impaired relative to their “normal”.
I know I’m just sceptical but my view is the use of an inhaler or other form of medication is not ever even considered to be performance enhancing, but it is very probably being used as insurance to minimise the athlete’s performance deterioration. The docs know that all the competition will be suffering some drop in capability from EIA, however minor, and if their man can legally prevent a similar drop, then do it. The race winning margins are so tiny, any difference is significant.
I don’t care about Froome either way. He’s far from the only one using an inhaler, difference only is he wins stuff and gets tested more, thats it.
There was a very recent study on elite footballers which suggested ~30% would benefit from using an inhaler so yes undiagnosed eia is something which can affect sportspeople.
Whether so many cyclists would go undiagnosed is another matter I suppose because it's more of a pure fitness sport. Top end fotballers probably undergo all the fitness teats cyclists do but whether the same applies to your Mansfield Towns, Accrincton Stanleys and Notts Forests may be more doubtful.
Just on BobMcs point that we don't know how common these high Sal in urine scores are - no we don't but soes anyone truthfully think it's likely that there are a significant amount of such cases that we've never heard about? Yes it's a possibility but seems unlikely to me, but I grant you that whatever the truth here it probably will end up sounding unlikely - I guess unlikely doesn't mean impossible.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
This is the other paper referenced by Inrng: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24518370Inrng wrote:Another test took 32 athletes, administered permitted doses, made them exercise until dehydration and 20 exceeded the limit.
Makes you think this must have come up pretty frequently before now.0 -
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:thegibdog wrote:
Still, if you're going to claim to be leading the anti-doping struggle, it's probably a good idea to be familiar with anti-doping regulations.Rick Chasey wrote:
Need to take German riders in the context of Germany not showing the Tour for years because it was too doped up.inseine wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/a-scandal-tony-martin-sounds-off-on-chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/
I amazed these days how quick riders are to condem other riders, I guess it's s reaction to the 'don't spit in the soup' attitude of earlier times. Martin calls calls it s positive test which is quite strong and technically incorrect.
Again, I think you're missing the point.
Is your point that he's playing up for a German audience? If so, do you really think it is how a professional sportsman should behave towards one of his fellow pros?
Martins comments displayed two worrying issues for me. Firstly, as I've said above, the fact that this case was being dealt with properly for a few months (i.e. it hadn't been leaked to the media) is seen as double standards and suggestions it was being swept under the carpet and secondly, that a pro rider who's career and reputation can be affected by not fully understanding the anti-doping regulations appears not to fully understand the anti-doping regulations. All in all, it seems a strange case for him come out ranting over. Has he ever reacted like that to a team mate or ex-team mate of his being busted?0
