Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

RichN95.

I think this cycling's Brexit moment. There are clearly defined sides and their views will merely be enforced by this, either way. The wounds may never be healed.

My position is if Froome has overdone it on the puffer - then big deal. It's a mistake. it happens.

But I'd rather he got cleared - not because I am a fan, which I am - but because I want to see all the fanatic internet doping fans gutted.

wombly_knees

They won't really be gutted, the narrative will just move from doper to cover up. Although, I'd rather he got suspended at this point than not.

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Meanwhile, Martin's reaction is not the most extreme one...

Payback time

Paging RR, paging RR.

Oh my days

blazing_saddles

wombly knees wrote:

They won't really be gutted, the narrative will just move from doper to cover up. Although, I'd rather he got suspended at this point than not.

They won't really be happy either.
Unless someone can conjure up a lifetime ban off an inhaler infraction. :P

nickice

joe2008 wrote:

nickice wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

nickice wrote:

To be fair to the clinic, people on here were claiming it was a masking agent until earlier on today.

To be fair to the people on here, INRNG was too:

"It is considered a stimulant in small doses and can have an anabolic, muscle-building effect in larger doses (an online search will bring up stories of bodybuilders injecting it) and can be a masking agent too."

And then later corrected it.

Well, it's still in his post, and not everybody has the inclination to read through a few hundred comments to find the correction.

That is true. He should correct the original article. Ross Tucker was also calling it a masking agent. Almost as if he's trying to stir something...

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

I think this cycling's Brexit moment. There are clearly defined sides and their views will merely be enforced by this, either way. The wounds may never be healed.

My position is if Froome has overdone it on the puffer - then big deal. It's a mistake. it happens.

But I'd rather he got cleared - not because I am a fan, which I am - but because I want to see all the fanatic internet doping fans gutted.

WIth that in mind, what would take you to turn around and say "oh, he is a doper, sorry lads - bad call on my part"?

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

I think this cycling's Brexit moment. There are clearly defined sides and their views will merely be enforced by this, either way. The wounds may never be healed.

My position is if Froome has overdone it on the puffer - then big deal. It's a mistake. it happens.

But I'd rather he got cleared - not because I am a fan, which I am - but because I want to see all the fanatic internet doping fans gutted.

Presumably when a less british athlete gets busted youd be happy for them to get off to for the same reasons?

Vino'sGhost

You lot were in the denier, discredit mode with armstrong too.

Matthewfalle

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think this cycling's Brexit moment. There are clearly defined sides and their views will merely be enforced by this, either way. The wounds may never be healed.

My position is if Froome has overdone it on the puffer - then big deal. It's a mistake. it happens.

But I'd rather he got cleared - not because I am a fan, which I am - but because I want to see all the fanatic internet doping fans gutted.

Presumably when a less british athlete gets busted youd be happy for them to get off to for the same reasons?

And so you are saying that the other guys who were banned for salbutamol big deal mistakes should also have not been banned and they should have those bans rescinded off their records?

cq20

I’ve seen this question elsewhere but not here so..... suppose Froome gets a ban and it is like the Yates example and he gets 4 months, presumably Sky have to let him go because of their “no drugs conviction” policy. Where could he go? Bahrain-Merida, BMC, Katusha (with a welcome on board message from Tony) ? This could be quite entertaining and would liven up the 2018 GTs a bit and cause some current team leaders a bit of indigestion

joe2008

cq20 wrote:

I’ve seen this question elsewhere but not here so..... suppose Froome gets a ban and it is like the Yates example and he gets 4 months, presumably Sky have to let him go because of their “no drugs conviction” policy. Where could he go? Bahrain-Merida, BMC, Katusha (with a welcome on board message from Tony) ? This could be quite entertaining and would liven up the 2018 GTs a bit and cause some current team leaders a bit of indigestion

Froome won't be leaving Sky over this, even if he gets a ban. It will be seen as a non-doping infringement.

Matthewfalle

cq20 wrote:

I’ve seen this question elsewhere but not here so..... suppose Froome gets a ban and it is like the Yates example and he gets 4 months, presumably Sky have to let him go because of their “no drugs conviction” policy. Where could he go? Bahrain-Merida, BMC, Katusha (with a welcome on board message from Tony) ? This could be quite entertaining and would liven up the 2018 GTs a bit and cause some current team leaders a bit of indigestion

Very good point well presented.

Lanterne_Rogue

Your regular public service reminder that registered users can mute people by going to their profile and clicking 'add foe', just in case you're bored of boring trolls being boring.

Back to the thread...

cq20

joe2008 wrote:

cq20 wrote:

I’ve seen this question elsewhere but not here so..... suppose Froome gets a ban and it is like the Yates example and he gets 4 months, presumably Sky have to let him go because of their “no drugs conviction” policy. Where could he go? Bahrain-Merida, BMC, Katusha (with a welcome on board message from Tony) ? This could be quite entertaining and would liven up the 2018 GTs a bit and cause some current team leaders a bit of indigestion

Froome won't be leaving Sky over this, even if he gets a ban. It will be seen as a non-doping infringement.

That may be the case because it is a specified rather than a banned substance. I can’t remember the details of the Simon Yates case but IIRC there was mention that his conviction would prohibit him from joining Sky - if he wanted to. I’m happy to be corrected if that is wrong

RichN95.

cq20 wrote:

joe2008 wrote:

cq20 wrote:

I’ve seen this question elsewhere but not here so..... suppose Froome gets a ban and it is like the Yates example and he gets 4 months, presumably Sky have to let him go because of their “no drugs conviction” policy. Where could he go? Bahrain-Merida, BMC, Katusha (with a welcome on board message from Tony) ? This could be quite entertaining and would liven up the 2018 GTs a bit and cause some current team leaders a bit of indigestion

Froome won't be leaving Sky over this, even if he gets a ban. It will be seen as a non-doping infringement.

That may be the case because it is a specified rather than a banned substance. I can’t remember the details of the Simon Yates case but IIRC there was mention that his conviction would prohibit him from joining Sky - if he wanted to. I’m happy to be corrected if that is wrong

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

cq20

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

Wheelspinner

cq20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

What, other than winning a GT?

cq20

Wheelspinner wrote:

cq20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

What, other than winning a GT?

Given that at the supposed dose and the knowledge that he was certain to be tested and “failed”, it seems a very strange tactic to win a GT by ensuring that your leader fails a test

No_Ta_Doctor

Wheelspinner wrote:

cq20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

What, other than winning a GT?

It's not a PED. The very worst case scenario - from a perspective of Froome breaking the rules - is that he's knowingly gone over the allowed dose in an attempt to combat his asthma. In which case he should be stripped of the Vuelta and banned.

Far more likely he's either accidentally gone over the dose (and should be stripped and banned - it's his responsibility) or has gone right up to the dose but has an abnormally high level of salbutamol in his urine due to dehydration or something.

Whatever the case, I think WADA should take a long look at the limit they impose and how they detect infraction of it. There seems to be at least some scope in the literature to suggest they need a revision.

Mad_Malx

No tA Doctor wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

cq20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

What, other than winning a GT?

It's not a PED. The very worst case scenario - from a perspective of Froome breaking the rules - is that he's knowingly gone over the allowed dose in an attempt to combat his asthma. In which case he should be stripped of the Vuelta and banned.

Far more likely he's either accidentally gone over the dose (and should be stripped and banned - it's his responsibility) or has gone right up to the dose but has an abnormally high level of salbutamol in his urine due to dehydration or something.

Whatever the case, I think WADA should take a long look at the limit they impose and how they detect infraction of it. There seems to be at least some scope in the literature to suggest they need a revision.

Very good summary there.

Matthewfalle

underlayunderlay wrote:

Your regular public service reminder that registered users can mute people by going to their profile and clicking 'add foe', just in case you're bored of boring trolls being boring.

Back to the thread...

Ah - here we go....

The "people with opposite opinion from my own so they must be trolls! Trolls! Opposite opinion trolls!" Post.

Get a grip. It's called debate, mate.

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think this cycling's Brexit moment. There are clearly defined sides and their views will merely be enforced by this, either way. The wounds may never be healed.

My position is if Froome has overdone it on the puffer - then big deal. It's a mistake. it happens.

But I'd rather he got cleared - not because I am a fan, which I am - but because I want to see all the fanatic internet doping fans gutted.

Presumably when a less british athlete gets busted youd be happy for them to get off to for the same reasons?

I think this forum is reasonably consistent in that most contributors prefer to see due process. From memory the general consensus with Paolini was he should get the minimum ban possible but also be given support, the response to Ulissi was very similar to Froome (Rich and others have said in this thread that Froome should get a similar ban if he is unable to demonstrate a legitimate reason why his levels were high). Once a rider has had both samples fail for a banned PED then generally the reaction on here is they should get a lengthy ban. Why do you have an issue that the majority on here want to see things done correctly? Also, when I joined this site Armstrong hadn't been caught but there was a mounting pile of testimony and circumstantial evidence and the vast majority on here felt he was doping. I can only remember one or two major fanboys who were fighting his corner back then.

As I said earlier, I'd enjoy the schadenfreude of Froome getting banned after the attitude he took to Wiggins TUEs but if he is able to demonstrate a reason for the elevated levels that is accepted by the experts in accordance with the rules then he should keep his Vuelta and not face a ban.

RichN95.

Well I'm off to play hockey now. My captain uses ventolin. Maybe I'll have a couple of toots and see if it turns me into Maddie Hinch

inseine

This is a very confusing case. There's talk of dehydration or other outside forces contributing to a higher reading, but surely he's been testing 100s of times after using his inhaler and in a variety of conditions? I can't imagine what was special about that day.

trivial_poursuivant

inseine wrote:

This is a very confusing case. There's talk of dehydration or other outside forces contributing to a higher reading, but surely he's been testing 100s of times after using his inhaler and in a variety of conditions? I can't imagine what was special about that day.

This is the strange thing. He knows what taking more would do and what his likely threshold is. I would also like to think he knows how easy it would be to go over it if he were to try and deliberately over use it. Any crap about pills, injections etc would again be too obvious. If you intend to cheat then you do it in a way that’s not so bloody obvious. I would think BECAUSE the reading is so high it wasn’t something he has done. It’s too high to cheat if that makes sense. There must be an accumulation of extreme factors that have caused this. Or as no one seems to think , foul play in the testing process. If tests can be manipulated one way they can be manipulated the other way. There must be a few people with a grudge against Sky, Froome, cycling as a whole. I’m not one for conspiracy theories but it just seems a ridiculous thing for a rider and team in the biggest spotlight would even attempt with so much scrutiny in their activities already happening.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Well I'm off to play hockey now. My captain uses ventolin. Maybe I'll have a couple of toots and see if it turns me into Maddie Hinch

Come on Rich, you know PEDs don't work in games of skill.

trivial_poursuivant

No tA Doctor wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Well I'm off to play hockey now. My captain uses ventolin. Maybe I'll have a couple of toots and see if it turns me into Maddie Hinch

Come on Rich, you know PEDs don't work in games of skill.

Or girls sports

Pross

inseine wrote:

This is a very confusing case. There's talk of dehydration or other outside forces contributing to a higher reading, but surely he's been testing 100s of times after using his inhaler and in a variety of conditions? I can't imagine what was special about that day.

More puffs than usual? Maybe he would normally have 2 or 4 but for some reason needed the full 8 this time and when he's taken 4 in the past he already had a reading of 995 but has never been aware of it.

More dehydrated than normal? The graphs posted before seem to suggest a big change in reading between 2% and 5% dehydration.

Timing of use? You're allowed 8 puffs in 24 hours, maybe he needed them all quite close together and that affected the concentration levels.

Who knows but he has an opportunity to provide an explanation. If that is deemed acceptable by the experts then under the rules there is no offence so no ban or loss of Vuelta, if he isn't able to do so then he should get a ban based on the offence (I.e. too much of a prescribed substance not use of a banned substance) and lose his Vuelta.

Unfortunately, as we know, people gave had enough of experts and instead want to enforce their own rules based on whether or not they are Froome fans.

RichN95.

inseine wrote:

This is a very confusing case. There's talk of dehydration or other outside forces contributing to a higher reading, but surely he's been testing 100s of times after using his inhaler and in a variety of conditions? I can't imagine what was special about that day.

He has said that he wa suffering much more than usual and took higher than normal dosages. His excessive coughing and breathing problems were noted by several people in Spain at the time

Wheelspinner

No tA Doctor wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

cq20 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It just was speculation. I don’t think Sky said anything themselves

Thanks for that. Personally, I wish Froome well on this and hope he can prove his case. If that fails, my view is that it was an innocent rider / team mistake. I can’t see any motivation for them doing it deliberately

What, other than winning a GT?

It's not a PED. The very worst case scenario - from a perspective of Froome breaking the rules - is that he's knowingly gone over the allowed dose in an attempt to combat his asthma. In which case he should be stripped of the Vuelta and banned.

Far more likely he's either accidentally gone over the dose (and should be stripped and banned - it's his responsibility) or has gone right up to the dose but has an abnormally high level of salbutamol in his urine due to dehydration or something.

Whatever the case, I think WADA should take a long look at the limit they impose and how they detect infraction of it. There seems to be at least some scope in the literature to suggest they need a revision.

Why should WADA change a thing? They set (arbitrary perhaps) limits, for reasons they believe are valid, based on presumably expert advice. Before the start of any race, teams and riders sign up to complying with those rules. When a team or rider trips up - intentionally or otherwise - why is it suddenly WADA's fault? It isn't. It can't be. The rules are not something they make up post-race; they're available for anybody, anywhere, anytime to read. And for crissakes, everybody please stop with the "it's not a PED" line. So what? There's a load of things on the WADA list that are not a PED. That's a furphy - it's on their list of things that they test for, so whether it is a PED or a hallucinogen, riders and teams KNOW there are rules about its use.

I'm tired of the droning excuse that they wouldn't do it on purpose because they know he's gonna be tested blah blah. Again, so what? I don't think in the history of drug-scandals in cycling there has ever been one where the rider and team announced "Yeah we did that on purpose, loaded up on everything just for the fun of the circus it would start". Except perhaps Ricco.

Froome's use of Salbutamol was entirely deliberate. Sticking an inhaler in your mouth and sucking in this drug is a DELIBERATE act. How the hell is it not? Where has anybody claimed that he was just riding along and having a nice time when he mysteriously rode through a cloud of the stuff and inhaled way too much?

He didn't. He picked the inhaler out of his pocket, several times, stuck it in his mouth and pushed the spray button. Get over it. If he (medically) needed to do that to stay in the race, that was his deliberate choice to do so. If his asthma was that bad, he had a choice to pull over and climb off, but he deliberately did not.

So freaking what if he didn't actually intend to break the limit? I'm sure he didn't, and I've not said anywhere he does. I doubt anybody has claimed that, other than The Clinic perhaps. But, he has done so - beginning, middle and end of facts so far.

He gets paid 4 million pounds a year to ride a bike and win races - that's his entire reason for being anything other than some skinny bloke with a few freckles and a lack of charisma. He's renowned for being a competitive type, and at the business end of a long tough hot hard race, with a very rare achievement in his grasp of winning TWO GT's in a row, I'd bet London to a brick he was going to push every boundary to the limit to pull it off.

He just got it wrong. And that means - ban stick.