Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

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/

Ja fine but suspend him from what? Attending training camps?

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

In other news, I think this is fair by Brent Copeland
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copelan ... nd-froome/

Most teams wouldn't take money from oppressive torturing dictators either, but each to their own.

And as for Ulissi, he was suspended by Lampre only because in the MPCC, which they were only in because they had spent most of the decade dodging alegations of team wide doping programmes.

RichN95.

smithy21 wrote:

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.

He has said that on this occasion he had acute asthma and took more than his usual dosage. So on a regular day he may take one, two puffs maximum. But on this occasion he may have taken the maximum eight.

The problem is that they probably don't know what their normal test results are so they can't know if they are at risk if they take significantly more.

I suspect that if he does the test and registers anything above the threshold (not 2000) the UCI won't be sure enough of winning a case to progress. They don't want to get mired in a lengthy and expensive battle over an inhaler.

debeli

I love motorsport and football and cycling and a few other sports. I get cross when City or Chelsea buy up Arsenal players because of their bottomless coffers, but when Arsenal clear out the Saints' academy I forgive it as good business.

There are parallels in cycling. I love the GTs and I usually follow them in print or on the radio or tv. There are riders I like and riders I dislike. I dislike Froome and his opportunist Englishness and his sanctimonious piffle about being clean. Whatever he does, I will dislike him.

I liked Pantani, Evans, Voeckler, Armstrong (up to a point) Vino, Ekimov and many other notorious dopers. I liked them - apart from Lance - whatever they did. And I forgave everything.

Marginal gains do count and Sky and DB know where to find them. And they know when and where to lose records of the contents of a jiffy bag. It is very tight at the top of any sport. To win 2 GTs in a year is an unbelievable achievement. An incredible achievement. Unbelievable. Incredible.

Like Vino's recovery from his crash a few years ago or Lance's times up the big climbs. Unbelievable.

But I am still drawn to the sport. I do not look for justice or ethical victory, but theatre and spectacle. And I get that. But have I ever believed Sky were clean, with Wiggo, Froome or anyone else? I find the notion unbelievable.

They may get away with it. But that is all.

Richmond Racer 2

Well, Brailsford likes to position Sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

In other news, I think this is fair by Brent Copeland
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/copelan ... nd-froome/

Most teams wouldn't take money from oppressive torturing dictators either, but each to their own.

And as for Ulissi, he was suspended by Lampre only because in the MPCC, which they were only in because they had spent most of the decade dodging alegations of team wide doping programmes.

Handbag?

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Well, Brailsford likes to position Sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so

Did you get Friebe's take on this at the Soho show?

DeVlaeminck

RichN95 wrote:

He has said that on this occasion he had acute asthma and took more than his usual dosage. So on a regular day he may take one, two puffs maximum. But on this occasion he may have taken the maximum eight.

The problem is that they probably don't know what their normal test results are so they can't know if they are at risk if they take significantly more.

I suspect that if he does the test and registers anything above the threshold (not 2000) the UCI won't be sure enough of winning a case to progress. They don't want to get mired in a lengthy and expensive battle over an inhaler.

I'm sure that Froome's story will be he normally takes one, at most two, puffs but it seems unlikely he hasn't gone up to the limit quite a few times. They got out the hard stuff for Brad when grand tour time came, even getting TUEs that a number of experts find questionable, are we to believe they told Chris to go easy on the blue inhaler even though he was complaining of bronchial constriction at the 2015 Tour and has a history of chest and breathing problems?

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Well, Brailsford likes to position Sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so

Did you get Friebe's take on this at the Soho show?

Nope - spill the beans, Rick

gweeds

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... ontroversy

".....according to Dr Tom Bassingdale, a forensic scientist at Sheffield Hallam University, Team Sky and its principal, Sir Dave Brailsford, will almost certainly ask the UCI to provide them with Froome’s urine from other tests at the Vuelta in an attempt to pick up clues about why his 7 September test was abnormal.

“The range of data would be very useful because it would be like a little biological passport for salbutamol,” Bassingdale told the Guardian. “Froome would be able to see how much his levels of salbutamol fluctuated every day. If his values were pretty high but still within the legal threshold on his usual dose and then on the day he took a few puffs extra it went up massively it could indicate that he was dehydrated – or possibly had impaired liver function.

“However, if it was down at 100 nanograms per millilitre for most of the Vuelta and it jumps to 2000 ng/ml in one day it would be much harder to explain.”"

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'm sure that Froome's story will be he normally takes one, at most two, puffs but it seems unlikely he hasn't gone up to the limit quite a few times. They got out the hard stuff for Brad when grand tour time came, even getting TUEs that a number of experts find questionable, are we to believe they told Chris to go easy on the blue inhaler even though he was complaining of bronchial constriction at the 2015 Tour and has a history of chest and breathing problems?

Then surely he'd do exactly the same as he did on those occasions if it had worked then. Maybe four puffs had done the trick

Whatever he did - legal or not - this time was obviously more serious than previous times.

mididoctors

Timoid. wrote:

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.

+1

RichN95.

In the more insane areas of the internet it appears that hiring a lawyer is now proof that someone is guilty.

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Well, Brailsford likes to position Sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so

Did you get Friebe's take on this at the Soho show?

Nope - spill the beans, Rick

Basically that in the year leading up to the team announcement, Brailsford was very much an outside figure in the sport, and he had ideas about how they were going to do things, including all that clean crap.

Then when the team actually launched, they became part of the establishment, seeing the same guys week in week out at all the various races, and they adjusted their behaviour to adjust; just like anyone would. They look around and see what others are doing and what lines they go to, and adjust to that.

He also made the point that the comments made pre-launch, around how clean they're going to be, or as you put it "poisition[ing] sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so" basically dropped from their discourse as soon as they got down to the practicalities of racing, and that, within the bubble of pro-cycling, they don't hold themselves up to much of a higher standard of ethics than anyone else.

Ultimately, they're just another bike team.

gweeds

Essentially, either we all change, or none of us do.

inseine

'clean crap' 'Ultimately, they're just another bike team'
It's a difficult issue for me. On one hand i feel it's harsh that they are pilloried for being no better than anyone else, but on other if they've created a fan base on the back of a false claim then they deserve a bit of stick.

rick_chasey

That wasn’t a good summary by me.

Apologies.

DeVlaeminck

http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/norweg ... us-skiers/


This is quite interesting, despite some apparent inaccuracies about it being a masking agent. It does suggest that high level sports people have been using salbutamol in the perhaps mistaken belief it will enhance performance.

It also mentions the case of an athlete caught because he used a nebuliser rather than an inhaler - same dose but more gets into your body hence the positive. There's no evidence to suggest Froome did similar but it is at least another possible explanation - incompetent doctor not realising the 1600 limit is designed around inhaler use rather than nebuliser use.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Basically that in the year leading up to the team announcement, Brailsford was very much an outside figure in the sport, and he had ideas about how they were going to do things, including all that clean crap.

Then when the team actually launched, they became part of the establishment, seeing the same guys week in week out at all the various races, and they adjusted their behaviour to adjust; just like anyone would. They look around and see what others are doing and what lines they go to, and adjust to that.

He also made the point that the comments made pre-launch, around how clean they're going to be, or as you put it "poisition[ing] sky as shining examples of all thats good and right so" basically dropped from their discourse as soon as they got down to the practicalities of racing, and that, within the bubble of pro-cycling, they don't hold themselves up to much of a higher standard of ethics than anyone else.

Ultimately, they're just another bike team.

Also in 2009/10 there were proper doping cases - Armstrong was still riding around. No-one then thought that a genuine asthmatic using an inhaler was in any way dubious. And if you needed a legitimate TUE it was fine to apply for one. No-one thought that legitimate healthcare was a 'grey area'.

I think they live up to the 'clean team' standards of then. They just can't live up to the extreme puritanical standards expected by some in 2017.

This 'whiter than white' image since their start has largely been constructed for them by others. They rarely say anything about doping unless asked. In Richard Moore's book at the end of 2010, Brailsford quite openly says that they do what it legal takes to get their riders on the start line in the best possible condition.

m.r.m.

Cycling's reputation will never improve, because cycling media is utterly cancerous. The story they care the most about is the doping story. Same can't be said for any other sport.

This thread gives a million times more nuanced take on the issue than most of the other media with exception of inrng. The podcasts like cyclingtips for example (which was particularly egregious) seem to be more concerned with banging another episode out quickly, that they are full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. Nuance takes time and "they ain't got no time for that!"
A lie is half way around the world before the truth has had time to get out of bed.

sherer

M.R.M. wrote:

Cycling's reputation will never improve, because cycling media is utterly cancerous. The story they care the most about is the doping story. Same can't be said for any other sport.

very true. Cycling has always been associated with doping, didn't the first rule book for Le Tour said they wont be offering drugs out you had to bring your own ?

I'm pretty certain there is just as much doping going on in football, just with more money it's covered up better \ ignore \ not looked for.

joe2008

sherer wrote:

Cycling has always been associated with doping,

With very good reason to be fair

gweeds

I’m not sure if this thread has been posted but it’s worth a read:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lukascph/sta ... 0180945920

tailwindhome

Ross Tucker v All known legal principles currently on Twitter.

r0bh

Love the one where he says "imagine someone charged with a crime had months to come up with the best defence" and someone says "dude, that's exactly what happens".

What a clown.

kleinstroker

Another graph

Matthewfalle

kleinstroker wrote:

Another graph

So do you think Froome is innocent then.

CuthbertC

kleinstroker wrote:

Another graph

You think he was dehydrated?

DeVlaeminck

kleinstroker wrote:

Another graph

Over what time period? Inhaling 1600 in one go is very different to no more than 800 in a 12 hour period. That graph could be very supportive of Froome's case or not supportive at all depending on missing information.

RichN95.

Apparently the Times reported that the doctor told him to have three toots after the race before going to dope control. An Italian paper has reported that four tokes can in such circumstances can give huge readings far in excess of even Froome's