Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
I am no sports scientist but I struggle to see how he gets out of this one.
I understand he has to do a test to prove the reading could have happened by taking a legal amount of puffs on his inhaler.
What I don’t get is how you would do this as I assume he has never triggered the limit before. I mean he could have gone over the limit before but if he had and it had checked out then I guess they wouldn’t be in this position again now.
If he has not gone over the limit before in a career where more recently he has become one of the most tested athletes then I am struggling to see how they can replicate this in a test especially if it needs him to be ill or have 17 GT stages in his legs.
Disclaimer- I may be talking nonsense.0 -
Pross wrote: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?
It's entirely for the German audience. Obviously.
And yes, I'm sure he's entirely hypocritical. I did a quick google looking for his take on the Katusha athletes who got banned and I couldn't find anything.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
'German state networks ARD and ZDF, in an unprecedented move, pulled the plug on Tour de France live broadcasts on Wednesday in the wake of the latest positive doping test involving German rider Patrik Sinkewitz.'
This was a year after Ullrichs doping revelations.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote: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.
From the abstract it isn't clear that's a permitted dose.
"Dehydration equivalent to a body mass loss greater than 2% concomitant to the acute inhalation of 1600 μg of salbutamol may result in a urine concentration above the current WADA limit "
Was the protocol to stay within wada guidelines on no more than 800 within 12 hours? It may have been but it's relevant. It also says some cycled to 5% body weight loss (some 2%), the higher figure is probably getting towards being incompatible with being competitive on a mountain stage.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
0
-
0
-
Neither my physique nor my physiology might be very relevant to pro riders, but I would normally lose about 1½% cycling home from work.DeVlaeminck wrote:It also says some cycled to 5% body weight loss (some 2%), the higher figure is probably getting towards being incompatible with being competitive on a mountain stage.0 -
In which case I think we're all agreed that Martin's comments were self-serving and to the detriment of the sport.Rick Chasey wrote:It's entirely for the German audience. Obviously.
And yes, I'm sure he's entirely hypocritical. I did a quick google looking for his take on the Katusha athletes who got banned and I couldn't find anything.0 -
Wheelspinner wrote:
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?
Situation's the same then. He's just got produce some plausible data that he didn't take too much.0 -
So cyclists become elite cyclists, find it they've got a previously undiagnosed asthma and start taking salbutamol. Oh and there's more being identified possibly because of the higher demands of training for a pro level puts more stress on the system that brings these conditions into the open.
Kind of similar to my case, I started pushing it more, got breathing difficulties, got asthma diagnosis and salbutamol. Does that mean I'm an elite sportsman too? Nike I want my sponsorship deal!
Serious point, has anyone wondered that if there are higher proportion of pro rank cyclists with an asthma diagnosis that proportion could be the same in the general population but they don't exercise enough to bring it out?
It was only when I started pushing it 5 days a week in the cold and wet mornings and commuting that I started showing problems. I have done a lot of exercise in the past but not outside in the cold like that. I bet obese Britain hasn't done anything close to that so perhaps they're undiagnosed not because they dont have it but because they don't get off their fat @rses to trigger it.
This post is to give those who question the number of salbutamol puffers in the pro peloton purely on numbers. Just an idea and digression from Froome.0 -
So cyclists become elite cyclists, find it they've got a previously undiagnosed asthma and start taking salbutamol. Oh and there's more being identified possibly because of the higher demands of training for a pro level puts more stress on the system that brings these conditions into the open.
Kind of similar to my case, I started pushing it more, got breathing difficulties, got asthma diagnosis and salbutamol. Does that mean I'm an elite sportsman too? Nike I want my sponsorship deal!
Serious point, has anyone wondered that if there are higher proportion of pro rank cyclists with an asthma diagnosis that proportion could be the same in the general population but they don't exercise enough to bring it out?
It was only when I started pushing it 5 days a week in the cold and wet mornings and commuting that I started showing problems. I have done a lot of exercise in the past but not outside in the cold like that. I bet obese Britain hasn't done anything close to that so perhaps they're undiagnosed not because they dont have it but because they don't get off their fat @rses to trigger it.
This post is to give those who question the number of salbutamol puffers in the pro peloton purely on numbers. Just an idea and digression from Froome.0 -
thegibdog wrote:
In which case I think we're all agreed that Martin's comments were self-serving and to the detriment of the sport.Rick Chasey wrote:It's entirely for the German audience. Obviously.
And yes, I'm sure he's entirely hypocritical. I did a quick google looking for his take on the Katusha athletes who got banned and I couldn't find anything.
Nah mate, Froome being way over the allowed limit for a drug is the self-serving detrimental bit.
Everything else is just a function of that.0 -
inseine wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
'German state networks ARD and ZDF, in an unprecedented move, pulled the plug on Tour de France live broadcasts on Wednesday in the wake of the latest positive doping test involving German rider Patrik Sinkewitz.'
This was a year after Ullrichs doping revelations.
Yeah, exactly.
Ullrich's doping got them all upset, and they issued an ultimatum, saying if one other german rider tests positive, we're done, and then Sinkewitz happens.
You think they were all up in arms just 'cos of Sinkewitz?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:thegibdog wrote:
In which case I think we're all agreed that Martin's comments were self-serving and to the detriment of the sport.Rick Chasey wrote:It's entirely for the German audience. Obviously.
And yes, I'm sure he's entirely hypocritical. I did a quick google looking for his take on the Katusha athletes who got banned and I couldn't find anything.
Nah mate, Froome being way over the allowed limit for a drug is the self-serving detrimental bit.
Everything else is just a function of that.
Nope.
Two, or multiple wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
'German state networks ARD and ZDF, in an unprecedented move, pulled the plug on Tour de France live broadcasts on Wednesday in the wake of the latest positive doping test involving German rider Patrik Sinkewitz.'
This was a year after Ullrichs doping revelations.
Yeah, exactly.
Ullrich's doping got them all upset, and they issued an ultimatum, saying if one other german rider tests positive, we're done, and then Sinkewitz happens.
You think they were all up in arms just 'cos of Sinkewitz?
I wasn't arguing, i was just saying that their reaction was due entirely due to the doping of GERMAN riders rather than the doping in the whole of the sport as you seemed to be suggesting. Yes, Sinkewitz's test was the final straw, but it was because he was German.0 -
Cycling is one of those sports where if you're not into it you won't even recognise the names of the cyclists, in the UK if you ask them who Froome is and they have no photo of a bloke in cycling gear, they won't remember who he is.
Most people are going to hear this story and condense it into it's shortest to understand form (rightly or wrongly), which is one of two things.... the first is "UK's second TDF winner has failed a drug's test", and the second is "UK's second TDF winner has got done for using his asthma inhaler way too much", this is the more likely one that will stick.
Cycling's reputation won't suffer much at all, naff all if he doesn't serve a ban or have Vuelta crossed out. Most people won't know or care what the Vuelta is either.
Martin is doing no damage either, what he says will only (possibly) resonate with cycling fans in his own country. His comments will soon be forgotten, and any fan interested will have much more news to read as it unfolds. The general public in the UK for example won't know or give a sh1t who Martin is, they barely know who Froome is.
Wiggins' TUEs created a bit of a media circus for a bit, but even that did no damage at all. So, IF Froome gets through with no ban or results quashed, this will be less of a circus than the Wiggins one, which did not do much damage to cycling really in my opinion.
In fact, I'd even say the Armstrong stuff did no real damage, the measurement of subjective perceptions in the public's mind of whether cycling is dirty was already done. New stories don't really act so much as to solidify opinions, they just convert a few fans who'd never considered cycling to be dirty into thinking it is.
People seem to think that cycling's reputation is something that is seen as bad, and stories like this perpetuate it. I think most people in the public probably remember Armstrong being brought down, but that is historic, gone, he's gone. Something like this is not the same.
A semi-engaged section of the public are already exposed to many negative sounding stories relating to British Cycling and Sky in the last year, this is just another one of those at the moment, no more. If you're not into cycling this doesn't make you feel more jaded about it really, I think it would just feel like the norm at the moment. Something that seems normal about a sport that you are not interested in anyway.
If you heard that <insert name of person in a sport you just are not interested in> was properly caught for doping for example? Would you feel the sensationalism? Would it resonate? Probably not, you'd just get on with what you are doing and probably not be in the slightest bit interested in the story. (We get a skewed perspective on here because so many people are the kinds who are interested in the topic of doping, ironically probably because they are into cycling).
For the regular public, and those who have never heard of cycling's dirty reputation, this kind of story is not anywhere sensational or scandalous enough to grab any real lasting attention. If you're watching a TV programme about what happened in 2017 in ten years time this won't be in it, guaranteed.0 -
0
-
RichN95 wrote:
Froome submits all his evidence. Then the CADF will decide whether to progress further. If Froome has PK tests which show him testing over 1000 they will probably drop it. Otherwise they will go to a hearing, where Froome will have to plead guilty, plead an error of dosage and maybe get a quick ruling. That Froome freely admits to taking the substance (as Yates did) will speed things along. Yates's hearing concluded only three months after his test.TailWindHome wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Probably not. If they charge him (for want of a better word) then they'll probably suspend him then. Then it will be in Froome's interests not to delay.TailWindHome wrote:See bolded
Can Froome stay in limbo as long as he wants to?
I said on twitter that Froome needs to do his PK tests ASAP and if they don't back him up push for a swift resolution (Plead guilty to accidentally overdoing it and take a loss of the Vuelta and a four month ban). He could be at the Giro with a UCI statement saying it was accidental use not cheating.
So what moves the process on to that point?
The suggestion on the twitter thread several pages back was that the was no time limit to Froome submitting his 'defence'.
That doesn't seem correct
(Maybe I'm reading too much into a thread probably written in someone's second language)“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:thegibdog wrote:
In which case I think we're all agreed that Martin's comments were self-serving and to the detriment of the sport.Rick Chasey wrote:It's entirely for the German audience. Obviously.
And yes, I'm sure he's entirely hypocritical. I did a quick google looking for his take on the Katusha athletes who got banned and I couldn't find anything.
Nah mate, Froome being way over the allowed limit for a drug is the self-serving detrimental bit.
Everything else is just a function of that.
Nope.
Two, or multiple wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes.
Oh come on.
You're not comparing apples with apples.
If Froome's f*ck up is a 7 on the scale, Martin is a 0.07.0 -
Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here
Exactly. He may have been technically incorrect, but he sounds like someone who is sick of doping and dopers. I prefer these sort of comments to the mealy mouthed carp of yesteryear.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote: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.
Oi! Its Nottingham Forest thank you very much.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here
Not at all.
I expect things to play out over time in the usual manner, along the lines that Rich has laid out.
I just can't agree with someone putting the boot into the sport, based upon an incorrect fact, regardless of how it may play out at home, or the history.
Maybe I am being negative here, but I can't see that he has done the embryonic Deutschland Tour any favours, given the hard line and fickle nature of their media."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I've heard Salbutamol can be used as a fuel for motors.0
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here
Well, we don't know that Froome is either to be fair. Martins words weren't exactly neutral.0 -
The irony is that Froome is rather fond of slithering reptiles.jimmythecuckoo wrote:Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
The irony is that Froome is rather fond of slithering reptiles.jimmythecuckoo wrote:
What about a slithering thing? With an owl?0 -
smithy21 wrote:I am no sports scientist but I struggle to see how he gets out of this one.
I understand he has to do a test to prove the reading could have happened by taking a legal amount of puffs on his inhaler.
What I don’t get is how you would do this as I assume he has never triggered the limit before. I mean he could have gone over the limit before but if he had and it had checked out then I guess they wouldn’t be in this position again now.
If he has not gone over the limit before in a career where more recently he has become one of the most tested athletes then I am struggling to see how they can replicate this in a test especially if it needs him to be ill or have 17 GT stages in his legs.
Disclaimer- I may be talking nonsense.
To the average lay person (that be me) it makes a lot of sense to me.0 -
inseine wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here
Well, we don't know that Froome is either to be fair. Martins words weren't exactly neutral.
Hmmm. Well.....0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:inseine wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Tony. Martin. Isn't. The. Baddie. Here. Folks
I get the feeling some people are trying to deflect here
Well, we don't know that Froome is either to be fair. Martins words weren't exactly neutral.
Hmmm. Well.....
In other news, I think this is fair by Brent Copeland
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copelan ... nd-froome/0
