Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem
Comments
-
Really who cares.0
-
Lagrange wrote:Really who cares.
I do.
I'm not particularly concerned about Froome or Sky, they're big boys. But I am concerned that this is being used to further tarnish the image of the sort, when there seems very little reason to suggest this is anything more than a storm in a tea-cup. The sport relies on sponsors for its existence, and manufactured scandals aren't helping when it has a history of genuine scandal it's trying to get past.
I'm also concerned that those athletes that aren't on 4 million Euros a year and who don't have a huge team like Sky behind them could get severely shafted if the flagging levels aren't well understood (scientifically) and set well. Some of them may already have been shafted.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
+1 (again)
I'm not entirely on board with the storm in a tea-cup, I'm still wary, but am prepared to wait to see what Sky can produce.0 -
+2. It's all very well not caring but if you are interested in the sport this could be significant (if also a little boring).0
-
I never said they should tell him, you're just being argumentativeMatthewfalle wrote:inseine wrote:What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.
Why should they tell him he’s close. That’s not their job.0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:+1 (again)
I'm not entirely on board with the storm in a tea-cup, I'm still wary, but am prepared to wait to see what Sky can produce.
Storm in a tea-cup in as much as that the worst anyone seriously suggests he's done (outside of the clinic tinfoil hat brigade) is to take a few more puffs of permitted medication than he was allowed, with no real performance enhancing aspect to it. EPO infused blood bags it aint.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
dennisn wrote:
How would ANYONE on this forum know the actual facts? You're all guessing.Pross wrote:We're now at that entrenched phase when the rules and facts have been discussed but people choose to continue arguing to support their own preconceived ideas instead.
The facts at this time are simple. His urine sample showed signs of excess salbutamol which isn’t a failed test and the rules allow him to demonstrate this could have happened without consuming it in excess of the permitted level in which case he’s guilty of nothing. If he can’t he gets banned. Also, we should know nothing about this case unless he gets banned. No guessing is required, it’s all written in the rules and regulations sorry Grandpa.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:+1 (again)
I'm not entirely on board with the storm in a tea-cup, I'm still wary, but am prepared to wait to see what Sky can produce.
Storm in a tea-cup in as much as that the worst anyone seriously suggests he's done (outside of the clinic tinfoil hat brigade) is to take a few more puffs of permitted medication than he was allowed, with no real performance enhancing aspect to it. EPO infused blood bags it aint.
He broke a limit set by WADA. They are not the ultimate authority in sport. They can be overruled if the governing bodies of sports think they are being unjust on the advice of experts. It has happened before and it can and will happen again. Each case is taken at face value and since this is not a case of a cyclist doping using illegal substances it is still open to interpretation. Interpretation which will be contested and I really don’t see what justification WADA has for setting the threshold where it has. They if and when this goes to CAS they need to show the reasons why they set it so. There has to be a justification, not a arbitrary figure plucked from the air because it sounds about right. Experts say there are no performance enhancing benefits. Some even suggest that it would be detrimental to performance at the level Froome had. This is not a case of a steroid or EPO or any other similar compound where the athlete has to explain why they had it in their system. We know he took Salbutamol, the rules allow it. So he isn’t hiding it’s use. It’s just a level which as I say WADA need to show why they set where they do. What justification do they have? What research have they done to come to the conclusion of why it should exist. This will all come out eventually and only then will we have answers as to Froomes fate.0 -
-
RichN95 wrote:
No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.Lookyhere wrote:
You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago
like i was!
Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.
Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.
More crap from Rich. Public interest?
Spouting off like an expert doesn’t make you one Rich. Even on the internet.0 -
This thread. I'm like a moth to a lightbulb, I know it's going to be unpleasant but I can't help being drawn to take a look.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Too much to bother reading.Trivial poursuivant wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:+1 (again)
I'm not entirely on board with the storm in a tea-cup, I'm still wary, but am prepared to wait to see what Sky can produce.
Storm in a tea-cup in as much as that the worst anyone seriously suggests he's done (outside of the clinic tinfoil hat brigade) is to take a few more puffs of permitted medication than he was allowed, with no real performance enhancing aspect to it. EPO infused blood bags it aint.
He broke a limit set by WADA. They are not the ultimate authority in sport. They can be overruled if the governing bodies of sports think they are being unjust on the advice of experts. It has happened before and it can and will happen again. Each case is taken at face value and since this is not a case of a cyclist doping using illegal substances it is still open to interpretation. Interpretation which will be contested and I really don’t see what justification WADA has for setting the threshold where it has. They if and when this goes to CAS they need to show the reasons why they set it so. There has to be a justification, not a arbitrary figure plucked from the air because it sounds about right. Experts say there are no performance enhancing benefits. Some even suggest that it would be detrimental to performance at the level Froome had. This is not a case of a steroid or EPO or any other similar compound where the athlete has to explain why they had it in their system. We know he took Salbutamol, the rules allow it. So he isn’t hiding it’s use. It’s just a level which as I say WADA need to show why they set where they do. What justification do they have? What research have they done to come to the conclusion of why it should exist. This will all come out eventually and only then will we have answers as to Froomes fate.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:This thread. I'm like a moth to a lightbulb, I know it's going to be unpleasant but I can't help being drawn to take a look.
This exactly 100%.
It's like Trump thread in cake shop - as much as it makes me seeth reading what the Dotard has done now I can't help but go back all the time. Like picking a scab or always ending up with your ex at the end of the night.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:This thread. I'm like a moth to a lightbulb, I know it's going to be unpleasant but I can't help being drawn to take a look.
We've all got a few small scars where we couldn't resist picking the scab. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
EDIT: If too much malignant pus oozes out then the doctor/admin will stop it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:This thread. I'm like a moth to a lightbulb, I know it's going to be unpleasant but I can't help being drawn to take a look.
This exactly 100%.
It's like Trump thread in cake shop - as much as it makes me seeth reading what the Dotard has done now I can't help but go back all the time. Like picking a scab or always ending up with your ex at the end of the night.
Self-awarness is not a strong point for many people.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
0
-
I suggest you look up what Public Interest means in a legal sense. It doesn't mean 'of interest to some of the public'. It relates to welfare and well-being of the public as a general whole and this is not threatened by the results of a bike race.Vino'sGhost wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No I sound like someone who actually has to deal with legal matters and confidentiality and take them seriously.Lookyhere wrote:
You sound like a LA fan from a few years ago like i was!
Confidentiality is one thing but he is a high profile cyclist who has taken a moral stance on doping, he has a returned a suspect sample and has had 2 months to dispel concerns over this, so far he has not, he s been allowed to compete and win a bronze at the Worlds.
I think we ve a right to know about this and for it not to be swept under the carpet.
Laws are written to protect the interests of the innocent (and everyone is innocent until found guilty by due process). Laws are not written to satisfy your nosiness.
More crap from Rich. Public interest?
Spouting off like an expert doesn’t make you one Rich. Even on the internet.Twitter: @RichN950 -
dennisn wrote:
Too much to bother reading.Trivial poursuivant wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Mad_Malx wrote:+1 (again)
I'm not entirely on board with the storm in a tea-cup, I'm still wary, but am prepared to wait to see what Sky can produce.
Storm in a tea-cup in as much as that the worst anyone seriously suggests he's done (outside of the clinic tinfoil hat brigade) is to take a few more puffs of permitted medication than he was allowed, with no real performance enhancing aspect to it. EPO infused blood bags it aint.
He broke a limit set by WADA. They are not the ultimate authority in sport. They can be overruled if the governing bodies of sports think they are being unjust on the advice of experts. It has happened before and it can and will happen again. Each case is taken at face value and since this is not a case of a cyclist doping using illegal substances it is still open to interpretation. Interpretation which will be contested and I really don’t see what justification WADA has for setting the threshold where it has. They if and when this goes to CAS they need to show the reasons why they set it so. There has to be a justification, not a arbitrary figure plucked from the air because it sounds about right. Experts say there are no performance enhancing benefits. Some even suggest that it would be detrimental to performance at the level Froome had. This is not a case of a steroid or EPO or any other similar compound where the athlete has to explain why they had it in their system. We know he took Salbutamol, the rules allow it. So he isn’t hiding it’s use. It’s just a level which as I say WADA need to show why they set where they do. What justification do they have? What research have they done to come to the conclusion of why it should exist. This will all come out eventually and only then will we have answers as to Froomes fate.
That’s ok. You don’t have to read it, no one does. So quite why people bother clicking on a thread to say they are bored with it is a bit stoopid.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:inseine wrote:What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.
Why should they tell him he’s close. That’s not their job.
Interesting point, does anyone know if the detail is fed back to the teams?
If you were Sky's medical staff would you not ask for the results?
Given riders have received bans for excess salbutamol and claimed their levels came from legal inhaler use would you not expect Sky to at least be interested in the results? The entire team is built around one athlete you'd think a team like Sky would be on top of this. In fact if the problem was anything like as bad as needing multiple puffs would they not have him on medication to prevent inflammation of the airways in the first place?
It just seems not for the first time we are being asked to believe Sky are are bunch of incompetents when that narrative suits them.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:inseine wrote:What if SKY assume that (for the sake of argument) 8 puffs gets you to the limit but Froome normally only takes 4 and unknown to him that already takes him close to the threshold because of his metabolism (or any number of other outside forces). The testers just say he's ok, and don't tell him he's close. Then on this day he does the full 8, plus he's dehydrated etc and bingo he's popped.
Why should they tell him he’s close. That’s not their job.
Interesting point, does anyone know if the detail is fed back to the teams?
If you were Sky's medical staff would you not ask for the results?
Given riders have received bans for excess salbutamol and claimed their levels came from legal inhaler use would you not expect Sky to at least be interested in the results? The entire team is built around one athlete you'd think a team like Sky would be on top of this. In fact if the problem was anything like as bad as needing multiple puffs would they not have him on medication to prevent inflammation of the airways in the first place?
It just seems not for the first time we are being asked to believe Sky are are bunch of incompetents when that narrative suits them.
I’d expect a team like Sky should/would have performed tests to assess inhaler usage on the their prize GC man, given its apparent variation in individuals, tbh. Perhaps it’s an expensive procedure, I don’t know?
(Pre adverse result, I mean)0 -
wahla21 wrote:
But he shoots himself in the foot to a certain extent. The Tdf/Spitting image al Francaise parody doesn't really provide a backdrop that is relevant to this particular situation because we are talking about infringement of a TUE prescribed legally with arguable performance benefits.
Anyway, until the French get a grand tour win, they will be more bitter even than Kimmage.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
All Kimmage articles are really about of the brilliance of Paul Kimmage. That bit's just in their to show his readers his deep understanding of French culture and the views of cycling's heartlands. But it's really just padding because has little to say. (He likes C+Ping other people's writing to do this)Pinno wrote:wahla21 wrote:
But he shoots himself in the foot to a certain extent. The Tdf/Spitting image al Francaise parody doesn't really provide a backdrop that is relevant to this particular situation because we are talking about infringement of a TUE prescribed legally with arguable performance benefits.
Anyway, until the French get a grand tour win, they will be more bitter even than Kimmage.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Do teams not do their own testing? If so, I would have thought they would know how his absorption rate tallied with the tests and if he was of a make up that meant taking the legal dose would put him 2 x the expected threshold that this would have been proven by now? If not, why not?0
-
I think an athlete has the right to expect that if he doesn't take too much he should have nothing to worry about. Not every sportsman is backed by a multi-million pound team.cld531c wrote:Do teams not do their own testing? If so, I would have thought they would know how his absorption rate tallied with the tests and if he was of a make up that meant taking the legal dose would put him 2 x the expected threshold that this would have been proven by now? If not, why not?Twitter: @RichN950 -
If he was tested OK so often during the Vuelta, what happened to change that on the stage 18 test
What if...what if...
...having lost 42 seconds to Nibali on the day before the test, he wobbled; just like he wobbled on Ventoux by "running up the hill". The need to win blinded him to logical thought and he did whatever he needed to do to avoid the same result happening on the road the next day...Half man, Half bike0 -
Lowest ever vote for Froome on SPOTY? The Telegraph mention his current drug issues in their overview of the contenders. I think Johnny Peacock will take it0
-
Or going so deep the day before messed up his metabolism? Could have been suffering from dehydration?Ridgerider wrote:If he was tested OK so often during the Vuelta, what happened to change that on the stage 18 test
What if...what if...
...having lost 42 seconds to Nibali on the day before the test, he wobbled; just like he wobbled on Ventoux by "running up the hill". The need to win blinded him to logical thought and he did whatever he needed to do to avoid the same result happening on the road the next day...0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:inseine wrote:Lowest ever vote for Froome on SPOTY? The Telegraph mention his current drug issues in their overview of the contenders. I think Johnny Peacock will take it
Joshua, surely.
Yep. A shoe-in.0
